10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned?(theregister.com)
theregister.com
10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned?
https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/07/10_years_after_snowden/
471 comments
You don't even need to be much of a conspiracy theorist nowadays to realize that mainstream media is controlled by a concentrated set of interests. Just look at how coordinated the media was against "quiet quitting". And then against "work from home". And pushing many, many other anti worker narratives.
No surprise, following the leaks Snowden was painted as a traitor that clearly only pandered to Russian interests.
No surprise, following the leaks Snowden was painted as a traitor that clearly only pandered to Russian interests.
Of course it’s not a conspiracy. It’s all about the interests. Just compare coverage of Palestine and Israel. US interests lie with Israel — a US proxy ready to gladly down any nation that steps out of line using American. So Israelis are the angels and Palestinians are the devils. Who cares about the brutal occupation. Who cares about settler violence. Ignore all Israeli crimes to the point of white-washing. Meanwhile, all media outlets will rush to ensure that any Palestinian resistance against the violent occupation — whether it’s violent or peaceful — is covered as if it is terrorism or racism.
US media is just Propaganda.
US media is just Propaganda.
The thing I don't get is that while you and others can clearly see the propaganda going on with US media, when it comes to Trump, people on the left all of a sudden go along with the propaganda and conspiracy theories such as Russiagate, or that Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian conspiracy. People want to believe what they want to believe, I don't know if the propaganda is done to control people, or it's what the people actually want - to believe their government is a force for good, that we're the good guys, etc.
The propaganda exists across the entire political spectrum. Americans have been pushed to fight against each other so that they're too tired, angry, and distracted to focus their efforts on those in power.
Yup, it's "Divide and Conquer" all the way down. Not even just political, or mainstream media, but everywhere. - Endless distractions to keep us bickering with each other, instead of addressing the bigger issues.
My wife (who read National Review back in high school and voted for Bush in college) was intensely anti-Trump and went down the rabbit hole of listening to all the NYT podcasts, Maddow, etc.—the pee tape, “walls closing in,” bank records showing ties to Russia, the whole nine yards. I’d love for someone to try and put together an objective montage of those stories as they developed over time, cross referenced against the Mueller and Durham reports.
Jimmy Dore has done a good job chronicling all that.
Also Aaron Mate. He won an Izzy Award for debunking russiagate.
Links please.
Jimmy Dore show on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/@thejimmydoreshow
Aaron Mate is a regular on his show.
Jimmy has been debunking the Russiagate conspiracy for years now. He's a comedian turned truth-teller. I stumbled across his show many years ago, and my honest first impression was that this guy looks like a shady used car salesman, so I was very skeptical of his claims. He will go into angry tirades often.
But after seeing enough of his segments, and seeing how things unfold over weeks and months, I realized he's actually legit. Whenever I see news unfold now on mainstream news, for example - the Nordstream pipeline being blown up and Russia being blamed for it, I know I will get a more accurate assessment of the truth from Jimmy Dore. And again, it's not that I take his word for it, I see how things unfold weeks and months later and turns out he was right.
Note: The left smears Dore as a right-winger. That's so bullshit. He's actually progressive and more left than the establishment left - antiwar, wants universal healthcare, pro-union pro-worker, free-speech. Dore was one of the first people to endorse and interview AOC when it looked like she was a legit anti-establishment lefty (that turned out to be wrong). The left doesn't like him because he criticizes them from the real left and reveals their hypocrisy and corruption.
Aaron Mate is a regular on his show.
Jimmy has been debunking the Russiagate conspiracy for years now. He's a comedian turned truth-teller. I stumbled across his show many years ago, and my honest first impression was that this guy looks like a shady used car salesman, so I was very skeptical of his claims. He will go into angry tirades often.
But after seeing enough of his segments, and seeing how things unfold over weeks and months, I realized he's actually legit. Whenever I see news unfold now on mainstream news, for example - the Nordstream pipeline being blown up and Russia being blamed for it, I know I will get a more accurate assessment of the truth from Jimmy Dore. And again, it's not that I take his word for it, I see how things unfold weeks and months later and turns out he was right.
Note: The left smears Dore as a right-winger. That's so bullshit. He's actually progressive and more left than the establishment left - antiwar, wants universal healthcare, pro-union pro-worker, free-speech. Dore was one of the first people to endorse and interview AOC when it looked like she was a legit anti-establishment lefty (that turned out to be wrong). The left doesn't like him because he criticizes them from the real left and reveals their hypocrisy and corruption.
Links please.
> People want to believe what they want to believe, I don't know if the propaganda is done to control people, or it's what the people actually want - to believe their government is a force for good, that we're the good guys, etc.
I'd put it a bit differently but I think we have the same idea in mind: people believe what resonates well in their minds because they are already tuned for this. So if someone likes to believe that natural medicine is good, then their mind is more likely to believe in big pharma conspiracies and that homeopathy is valid medicine (yes, I'm aware that natural medicine can be evidence-based and homeopathy is not natural).
In that sense, propaganda always needs to consider how minds are tuned already to give them something that they like to consume.
I'd put it a bit differently but I think we have the same idea in mind: people believe what resonates well in their minds because they are already tuned for this. So if someone likes to believe that natural medicine is good, then their mind is more likely to believe in big pharma conspiracies and that homeopathy is valid medicine (yes, I'm aware that natural medicine can be evidence-based and homeopathy is not natural).
In that sense, propaganda always needs to consider how minds are tuned already to give them something that they like to consume.
You sound like you've fallen for the right-wing media propaganda. That is propaganda too. Even more blatantly so, perhaps.
If you want a more neutral perspective on American media, look at foreign media. Trump is worse than the US media are willing to tell you, and Hunter Biden's laptop seems to be entirely made-up by US media and a couple of political figures.
If you want a more neutral perspective on American media, look at foreign media. Trump is worse than the US media are willing to tell you, and Hunter Biden's laptop seems to be entirely made-up by US media and a couple of political figures.
Are you aware that there is a site that has posted all the photos from Hunter Biden's laptop? There are thousands of photos of him in very shady situations. You're telling me those are all made up and photoshopped?
I have no problem believing that Hunter Biden has done questionable things. But nobody is arguing to elect Hunter Biden as president, and unlike Trump, Joe Biden doesn't hire his own children as part of his administration. So politically, it's irrelevant. We should be much more concerned about all the shady situations Trump has been in.
But also, people with political agendas have been messing with that laptop for years, so it's hard to trust anything coming from that laptop anymore. Whatever evidence there may be has been quite thoroughly compromised. The fact that it was handed to people with a political axe to grind, rather than to the police, was a mistake.
But also, people with political agendas have been messing with that laptop for years, so it's hard to trust anything coming from that laptop anymore. Whatever evidence there may be has been quite thoroughly compromised. The fact that it was handed to people with a political axe to grind, rather than to the police, was a mistake.
US liberals, sure. Actual leftists have as much contempt for both Trump and Biden, they are both part of the same ruling class.
"As much" sounds rather extreme. Biden has plenty of shortcomings, but he's not running the government as a mafia don and is objectively doing a much better job. I agree that US politics is too much of an oligarchy, but how they rule still matters, and Biden is a breath of fresh air after 4 years of Trump.
Biden spearheaded the destruction of Yugoslavia, was a big part of the austerity measures in the 90s and 2000s and was vice president during the vast increase in drone bombing.
Trump assassinated a foreign dignitary, but not much else. His rhetoric is worse and aesthetically he’s somewhat worse, sure.
I don’t see much practical difference.
Trump assassinated a foreign dignitary, but not much else. His rhetoric is worse and aesthetically he’s somewhat worse, sure.
I don’t see much practical difference.
I'm talking about his presidency. The breakup of Yugoslavia was decades ago, and it was falling apart by itself, not because of anything a specific US senator did. Of course lots of mistakes were made by many parties around the breakup of Yugoslavia; by the US, by various European countries, and most importantly of course by several Serbian leaders. It's a bit much to blame it all on Biden. But it was falling apart no matter what the US or EU did, unless you want them to support genocide.
It is true that Biden was heavily involved in foreign affairs during that time, but that may actually be why he might currently be the perfect president to have during the war in Ukraine. For a US president, he's doing a much better job at finding a good balance in supporting Ukraine without escalating than I can imagine any other recent president would have done.
Was Biden responsible for the drone strikes? I thought that was Obama's thing. It was certainly a terrible atrocity and something that should never have happened. With Obama's presidency I had high hopes and ended up mostly disappointed. With Biden, I had very low expectations, but he's surpassed them. Not my favourite guy, but definitely better than Trump. Better than Bush. Possibly even better than Obama.
Although I'm deeply disappointed about his union busting. Train union busting, even. I thought he liked trains. That is where I expected much better from him.
It is true that Biden was heavily involved in foreign affairs during that time, but that may actually be why he might currently be the perfect president to have during the war in Ukraine. For a US president, he's doing a much better job at finding a good balance in supporting Ukraine without escalating than I can imagine any other recent president would have done.
Was Biden responsible for the drone strikes? I thought that was Obama's thing. It was certainly a terrible atrocity and something that should never have happened. With Obama's presidency I had high hopes and ended up mostly disappointed. With Biden, I had very low expectations, but he's surpassed them. Not my favourite guy, but definitely better than Trump. Better than Bush. Possibly even better than Obama.
Although I'm deeply disappointed about his union busting. Train union busting, even. I thought he liked trains. That is where I expected much better from him.
Biden repeatedly argued for bombing my neighbours, which then happened.
Of course Biden wouldn’t support unions. Like his entire party, he represents one faction of US capital.
For what it’s worth, US communists and trade unionists don’t talk about Biden the way liberals like you do.
Of course Biden wouldn’t support unions. Like his entire party, he represents one faction of US capital.
For what it’s worth, US communists and trade unionists don’t talk about Biden the way liberals like you do.
CrackerNews(1)
[deleted]
Maybe it's because the tiny strip of land doesn't warrant so much attention. Coupled with facts like Jordan is also part of Palestine and is 4 times larger than Israel. Or basically just reading a history book rather than watch CNN. I recommend Time Immemorial, a book that cites all its resources in the appendix rather than cramming a bandwagon narrative.
Oh, the best one (not in the above book as that was written in the 1990s, before the following): Israel offered the Palestinians up to 94% of all lands they claimed their own. Unilateral, without demands. On 3 occasions and under 2 different PMs. The Palestinian leadership refused each time with no counterdemand.
Read a book.
Footnote: This isn't to say propaganda isn't ravaging the West.
Oh, the best one (not in the above book as that was written in the 1990s, before the following): Israel offered the Palestinians up to 94% of all lands they claimed their own. Unilateral, without demands. On 3 occasions and under 2 different PMs. The Palestinian leadership refused each time with no counterdemand.
Read a book.
Footnote: This isn't to say propaganda isn't ravaging the West.
What a thing to say. The occupation and ethnic cleansing of that “strip of land” has produced millions of refugees whose lives have been - and continue to be - upended for decades. I wonder if you were one of the children of these refugee camps — would you say the same?
Here’s a book for you to read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Pale...
Will you actually read it?
Here’s a book for you to read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Pale...
Will you actually read it?
(Note: I'm Israeli)
You are simplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. It's not "Israelis are angels, Palestinians are devils", but it's not the reverse either. It's a complex issue in which there isn't an easy path out, because of the actions of both sides.
Israel isn't solely to blame for the problems of the Palestinians; they were even refugees in Arab countries before they became Israeli refugees. And their current situation is at least partially caused by themselves, and at least partially caused by the fact that other powers in the region have a lot of incentive for the conflict to continue. It's also partially caused by Israel having incentive to continue the current situation, as it is strategically beneficial to Israel. (Which of course doesn't make it right!)
More to the point of your original post, I think coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian situation is very biased against Israel in most parts of the world, including the US. And I say this even as someone who is very "leftist" in my views of the situation, and absolutely hate what our current government is doing (in many ways, but including in this way). And in fact, I hate how Israel has acted over the last many years, though I, like most Israeli, have no idea how to "fix" the current situation.
You are simplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. It's not "Israelis are angels, Palestinians are devils", but it's not the reverse either. It's a complex issue in which there isn't an easy path out, because of the actions of both sides.
Israel isn't solely to blame for the problems of the Palestinians; they were even refugees in Arab countries before they became Israeli refugees. And their current situation is at least partially caused by themselves, and at least partially caused by the fact that other powers in the region have a lot of incentive for the conflict to continue. It's also partially caused by Israel having incentive to continue the current situation, as it is strategically beneficial to Israel. (Which of course doesn't make it right!)
More to the point of your original post, I think coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian situation is very biased against Israel in most parts of the world, including the US. And I say this even as someone who is very "leftist" in my views of the situation, and absolutely hate what our current government is doing (in many ways, but including in this way). And in fact, I hate how Israel has acted over the last many years, though I, like most Israeli, have no idea how to "fix" the current situation.
I was with you on the nuance until you said "US" -- we have actual laws making it illegal to boycott Israel in a bunch of states. Its not illegal to boycott anything else on the planet, just Israel.
Any politician who steps out of line on the issue, even just pointing at obvious facts on the ground, is disciplined immediately. See what happened to Rashida Tlaib a few years ago for making mild factual observations.
Any politician who steps out of line on the issue, even just pointing at obvious facts on the ground, is disciplined immediately. See what happened to Rashida Tlaib a few years ago for making mild factual observations.
I'm not sure you're being accurate about the laws against boycotting Israel - from what I remember, there's only laws against the federal government hiring workers that boycott Israel. A private citizen (or company) can still boycott Israel to their heart's content, IIRC. I could be wrong on that though.
I'm opposed to laws against boycotting, fwiw.
I'm opposed to laws against boycotting, fwiw.
Either way, no other country or organization gets that level of deference over here.
I mean in some ways the fact that Israelis are not all angels and Palestinians are not all devils is precisely my point. But look at the US media. They border line worship the Israeli army. Yeah — the same army that assassinated Tamimis father and killed her baby brother in the process. The same army that protects a sniper that journalist Shireen in the head. How is that not fucked?
But the whole “both sides are wrong” issue is total bullshit. One side has all the power and the other exists below the boot. One side is actively ethnically cleansing Palestine and the other side is being ethnically cleansed. You can’t possibly make both sides equal in blame.
But the whole “both sides are wrong” issue is total bullshit. One side has all the power and the other exists below the boot. One side is actively ethnically cleansing Palestine and the other side is being ethnically cleansed. You can’t possibly make both sides equal in blame.
Its not a complex issue, stop your BS.
Its an occupation started by the Arther Balfour deceleration in 1917. Started with Zionist crime gangs that later turned into the mossad and other occupational military forces who run the apartheid occupation.
It doesn't matter where Palestinians come from, why they live there, etc, ITS AN OCCUPATION, as simple as that.
Its an occupation of one of the holliest lands for all three religions, with ethnic cleansing against Palestinian Muslims and Christians, through every way possible, killing journalists, children, families, mass killings.
Yet when Palestinians go to defend their land and their rights they are called terrorists, what unfavorable coverage are you talking about? Palestinians throwing Molotovs against occupation forces? Terrorists, Ukrainians doing the exact same thing? Heros.
Its an occupation started by the Arther Balfour deceleration in 1917. Started with Zionist crime gangs that later turned into the mossad and other occupational military forces who run the apartheid occupation.
It doesn't matter where Palestinians come from, why they live there, etc, ITS AN OCCUPATION, as simple as that.
Its an occupation of one of the holliest lands for all three religions, with ethnic cleansing against Palestinian Muslims and Christians, through every way possible, killing journalists, children, families, mass killings.
Yet when Palestinians go to defend their land and their rights they are called terrorists, what unfavorable coverage are you talking about? Palestinians throwing Molotovs against occupation forces? Terrorists, Ukrainians doing the exact same thing? Heros.
epups(1)
Julian Assange suffered a worse fate for doing much less and nothing illegal. The 'crime' of both was revealing information inconvenient to the powerful. The powerful had their MSM focus on the messenger rather than the message and smear them any way they could.
It's interesting to read this. My experience is completely different, but I'm Dutch and tend to read either Dutch or online media. And online media mostly in the tech sphere. Everybody is pretty positive about Snowden, and more objective about issues like "quiet quitting" and working from home.
I think there's something really fundamentally wrong with US media. And not just with Fox News, but with all of them.
I think there's something really fundamentally wrong with US media. And not just with Fox News, but with all of them.
I want to explain this from my perspective so you can maybe see why this is happening:
I remember all the talk about quiet quitting and working home and all that, but because media has slowly shifted away from that, I seemed to think about it less. In fact, I completely forgot about quiet quitting until you just mentioned it, when I realized they have slowly blocked it out.
Imagine that. It took me a while to realize that. And I still needed something to remind me of it. A lot of people aren't constantly reminded about it, which means they'll think more about whatever is currently in the media and keep falling for their trap.
I remember all the talk about quiet quitting and working home and all that, but because media has slowly shifted away from that, I seemed to think about it less. In fact, I completely forgot about quiet quitting until you just mentioned it, when I realized they have slowly blocked it out.
Imagine that. It took me a while to realize that. And I still needed something to remind me of it. A lot of people aren't constantly reminded about it, which means they'll think more about whatever is currently in the media and keep falling for their trap.
Yes and: wrt journalism, corporate media cares more about access than holding power to account.
Therefore corporate media ends up defending the status quo, by default or by design.
Therefore corporate media ends up defending the status quo, by default or by design.
> 10 years after Snowden's first leak, what have we learned?
More pieces of the Zeitgeist, really.
More pieces of the Zeitgeist, really.
My observation as a non-American (Canadian) -- is that Americans are very much freedom and liberty loving... until it comes to anything about their military, their foreign policy, and their associated intelligence agencies. It's a state whose first president was a general, where the military is treated with a reverence I've seen in no other country, and where I suspect the population is deeply aware that its own economic advantage is tied directly to its military advantage.
Snowden, despite the injustices he revealed, fell on the wrong side of American opinion in relation to the military, foreign policy, and associated intelligence agencies.
Snowden, despite the injustices he revealed, fell on the wrong side of American opinion in relation to the military, foreign policy, and associated intelligence agencies.
There's a great scene in Casablanca when Claude Raines' police chief character shuts down the gambling den he gambles at, saying that he is "Shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in this establishment" before collecting his winnings on the way out. The US thinks it needs to be in the game, wants to win at it and is willing to turn a blind eye to the implications of that.
Americans know they have spies, they know the CIA and the NSA exist and have a vague idea what they do. They know it's unpleasant and may be technically illegal and they're fine with delegating their elected leaders to deal with that for them.
Americans know they have spies, they know the CIA and the NSA exist and have a vague idea what they do. They know it's unpleasant and may be technically illegal and they're fine with delegating their elected leaders to deal with that for them.
> They know it's unpleasant and may be technically illegal and they're fine with delegating their elected leaders to deal with that for them.
I don't know; maybe there are plenty of people like this. But I think there are many (more?) of us who are not OK with these things but feel powerless to do anything about them.
And that includes those of us who do appreciate America's hegemony and the relative safety and prosperity that it affords us, but who think that doing things like spying on citizens, bombing weddings, supporting coups, assassinating dissidents, invading and occupying countries for no good reason, torturing (e.g. waterboarding) prisoners, detaining people indefinitely, etc. are both morally wrong and counter-productive toward maintaining our position of power and prosperity and esteem in the world.
I don't know; maybe there are plenty of people like this. But I think there are many (more?) of us who are not OK with these things but feel powerless to do anything about them.
And that includes those of us who do appreciate America's hegemony and the relative safety and prosperity that it affords us, but who think that doing things like spying on citizens, bombing weddings, supporting coups, assassinating dissidents, invading and occupying countries for no good reason, torturing (e.g. waterboarding) prisoners, detaining people indefinitely, etc. are both morally wrong and counter-productive toward maintaining our position of power and prosperity and esteem in the world.
> where I suspect the population is deeply aware that its own economic advantage is tied directly to its military advantage.
I wouldn't be so fast to use the word "deeply" there.
I wouldn't be so fast to use the word "deeply" there.
Maybe deeply as in subconsciously.
That is what I meant, roughly.
Though clearly I think most Republican voters are pretty explicit about it. At least the ones I have met. This is kind of the undertone to "America First" really.
EDIT: And I'd add that many often seem to have the attitude that this extends to other countries in the American sphere of influence; even self-style liberals will make comments ot the effect that Canada or France or Germany etc are all benefiting from the US's world dominance and that we basically "owe them one"; as if this isn't in reality a two-sided coin where the US gets ... plenty... in return
Still I'd rather have US dominance than Russian.
Though clearly I think most Republican voters are pretty explicit about it. At least the ones I have met. This is kind of the undertone to "America First" really.
EDIT: And I'd add that many often seem to have the attitude that this extends to other countries in the American sphere of influence; even self-style liberals will make comments ot the effect that Canada or France or Germany etc are all benefiting from the US's world dominance and that we basically "owe them one"; as if this isn't in reality a two-sided coin where the US gets ... plenty... in return
Still I'd rather have US dominance than Russian.
> labeling him as a degenerate or criminal
Degenerate is a stretch, but 'criminal' does not seem controversial. Whether you agree with the laws or not, hate the USG, love Snowden, whatever, the fact remains that he did most likely break the law. He hasn't been convicted, true, but his own choice to stay out of the US suggests he believes he would be.
Degenerate is a stretch, but 'criminal' does not seem controversial. Whether you agree with the laws or not, hate the USG, love Snowden, whatever, the fact remains that he did most likely break the law. He hasn't been convicted, true, but his own choice to stay out of the US suggests he believes he would be.
I do think he broke the law (and I still like him. If I could wave a magic wand I'd bring him back and get the judge to give him a token sentence, or remand it to a civil matter -- breach of contract since he was a contractor), but that's just my opinion. I think there's ambiguity with respect to whistleblower laws, and he might want to stay out because he doesn't feel like he will get a fair trial, which, if I were him, I would not expect.
Criminal because exposing criminalities that a powerful state just declared top secret... very controversial - not only about the criminal but also ethically questionable if this is how a good democracy should work.
so you think whistleblowing is illegal if you work for the NSA ?
That's a pretty great example of begging the question. Can you explain why you think what he did was whistleblowing and not whatever he actually got charged with? Further, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on why we should want NSA employees or contractors to make their own judgement call on what information should be made public or not.
If you have secret programs that are later explicitly ruled illegal, rampant corruption within the whole system (people with access stalking personal contacts), AND the highest authorithies in that whole rotten branch of government lying straight to the face of democratic representatives, how else would you go about improving things without violating the espionage act?
If my government had secret programs that my own courts would rule illegal later, I damn well hope that someone is going to run to the press,and I also hope that this someone is gonna get a medal...
Are you simply going to tolerate corruption, illegal and unethical behavior as long as there is some law that forbids talking about that?!
If my government had secret programs that my own courts would rule illegal later, I damn well hope that someone is going to run to the press,and I also hope that this someone is gonna get a medal...
Are you simply going to tolerate corruption, illegal and unethical behavior as long as there is some law that forbids talking about that?!
Just to be clear, he's charged with espionage, just like most government whistleblowers are, according to a very questionable interpretation of, I think, a 1914 espionage act, that previously wasn't interpreted like that at all.
What he did was clearly not espionage, because he didn't sell info to a foreign country, he released it to the American public. And if I recall correctly, he made sure not all of it was released, and it was redacted as responsibly as he could. That's not how espionage works. Charging these whistleblowers with espionage is a flagrant abuse of the law.
What he did was clearly not espionage, because he didn't sell info to a foreign country, he released it to the American public. And if I recall correctly, he made sure not all of it was released, and it was redacted as responsibly as he could. That's not how espionage works. Charging these whistleblowers with espionage is a flagrant abuse of the law.
Snowden is complicated.
Yes, the level of wiretapping and surveillance was bad. It should have been exposed.
However, that's not all he took. And those documents have had negative effects on U.S. operations and that of their allies.
I have my conjectures and speculations, but ultimately, I do not believe Snowden is completely in the right.
Yes, the level of wiretapping and surveillance was bad. It should have been exposed.
However, that's not all he took. And those documents have had negative effects on U.S. operations and that of their allies.
I have my conjectures and speculations, but ultimately, I do not believe Snowden is completely in the right.
Example?
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_r...
Page 20:
"As of August 19, 2016, press outlets had published or referenced taken by Snowden.'™ This represents less than one-tenth of one percent of the nearly 1.5 million documents the IC assesses Snowden removed."
Page 22:
“As of June 2016, the most recent DoD review identified 13 high-risk issues . . . . Eight of the 13 relate to [redacted] capabilities of DoD; if the Russian or Chinese governments have access to this information, American troops will be at greater risk in any future conflict.”
Page 20:
"As of August 19, 2016, press outlets had published or referenced taken by Snowden.'™ This represents less than one-tenth of one percent of the nearly 1.5 million documents the IC assesses Snowden removed."
Page 22:
“As of June 2016, the most recent DoD review identified 13 high-risk issues . . . . Eight of the 13 relate to [redacted] capabilities of DoD; if the Russian or Chinese governments have access to this information, American troops will be at greater risk in any future conflict.”
So basically, “Snowden took a lot of stuff” and there are vague references to “the stuff he took is risky, but not in any tangible way that we can describe, but you’ll have to trust us”.
It’s not like I don’t believe that Snowden likely took things that endanger elements of national security. However, I’m going to need a bit more evidence to believe a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens, and equates “risks to national security” with “things that make us look bad”.
It’s not like I don’t believe that Snowden likely took things that endanger elements of national security. However, I’m going to need a bit more evidence to believe a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens, and equates “risks to national security” with “things that make us look bad”.
How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information? Are you claiming that the bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying? Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.
> a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens
You are biased.
> a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens
You are biased.
> Are you claiming that the bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying?
I’m claiming they are being vague.
Something can be technically true, and while it is given a framing that is far out of proportion with the supporting evidence.
> > a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens You are biased.
Snowden’s leaks demonstrated that what I said is a fact, and no one in the government even disputes the content of those leaks!
> How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information?
I don’t know, but that does mean you just get to exclaim “it’s classified!!!” And I magically just have to believe everything you say.
> Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.
The report provided no evidence to dispute. Again, the national security apparatus has shown itself time and again to not be trustworthy: gulf of Tonkin, wmd in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, spying on its own citizens and lying about it to congress under oath (and getting away with it with no consequences). Flagrantly violating the law (Iran contra), etc etc.
I’d rather be “biased” than a rube.
I’m claiming they are being vague.
Something can be technically true, and while it is given a framing that is far out of proportion with the supporting evidence.
> > a government that routinely and flagrantly lies to its citizens You are biased.
Snowden’s leaks demonstrated that what I said is a fact, and no one in the government even disputes the content of those leaks!
> How do you explain what he damaged at a technical level without revealing classified information?
I don’t know, but that does mean you just get to exclaim “it’s classified!!!” And I magically just have to believe everything you say.
> Please show evidence that anything in the report is not accurate.
The report provided no evidence to dispute. Again, the national security apparatus has shown itself time and again to not be trustworthy: gulf of Tonkin, wmd in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, spying on its own citizens and lying about it to congress under oath (and getting away with it with no consequences). Flagrantly violating the law (Iran contra), etc etc.
I’d rather be “biased” than a rube.
What part of the report is vague? If he revealed intelligence sources do you expect them to not redact the source's name?
The citations you gave were textbook examples of vague statements.
They said there were 13 risks and that 8 would be bad/endanger troops if China and or Russia were aware. That’s it. How many troops? Endanger them how? What kind of information are talking about? Sources and methods? Weapons systems? Other technology? Literally any detail???
I understand your position is that “they’re in a bind”. Well, there shouldn’t have squandered their reputation by lying about major issues facing the American people like war making, mass surveillance, illegal activities, etc.
Finally, the sheer number of documents he extracted was a red herring/immaterial to nation security. All that matters is content.
Edit: a move careful reading of the report demonstrates that the 1.5 million number appears to only refer to the number of non blank documents that were downloaded, it is not at all clear that the is any way for the government to get a precise measurement of what Snowden actually took with him to Hong Kong and disclosed. Anything that hasn’t been disclosed in public would therefore be purely speculative on the part of the US government.
Edit 2: a more careful reading of the section that outlines how he took the documents shows that “removed” simply constitutes the number of documents that he downloaded off of the respective NSA networks onto his local machines while at work. It says nothing about what he actually took offsite. Everything in the risk assessments are purely speculative based on what he had access to from the automated downloads he implemented.
They said there were 13 risks and that 8 would be bad/endanger troops if China and or Russia were aware. That’s it. How many troops? Endanger them how? What kind of information are talking about? Sources and methods? Weapons systems? Other technology? Literally any detail???
I understand your position is that “they’re in a bind”. Well, there shouldn’t have squandered their reputation by lying about major issues facing the American people like war making, mass surveillance, illegal activities, etc.
Finally, the sheer number of documents he extracted was a red herring/immaterial to nation security. All that matters is content.
Edit: a move careful reading of the report demonstrates that the 1.5 million number appears to only refer to the number of non blank documents that were downloaded, it is not at all clear that the is any way for the government to get a precise measurement of what Snowden actually took with him to Hong Kong and disclosed. Anything that hasn’t been disclosed in public would therefore be purely speculative on the part of the US government.
Edit 2: a more careful reading of the section that outlines how he took the documents shows that “removed” simply constitutes the number of documents that he downloaded off of the respective NSA networks onto his local machines while at work. It says nothing about what he actually took offsite. Everything in the risk assessments are purely speculative based on what he had access to from the automated downloads he implemented.
I really have no problem viewing him as both a hero and traitor at the same time.
I am not sure why we struggle so much with that idea given the complexity of the situation.
I am not sure why we struggle so much with that idea given the complexity of the situation.
This. I have friends who will say "he revealed secrets to our enemies!" and I don't even know how to respond. The U.S. government is a bigger global enemy (and a threat to me) than any Islamist in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Snowdens recent conversations around Russia and Russia's invasion of Ukraine have tinted or confirmed biases against Snowden as a traitor and stooge of the Russian government.
See: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/18/the-trouble-wi...
See: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/18/the-trouble-wi...
I read your link and don't get it. He said "Russia should not invade Ukraine" and pretty much nothing else. The criticism seems to be that he isn't more aggressively criticizing Russia? When he is physically located there, in a country that famously does not have any sort of freedom of speech, and has a wife and baby?
I believe the criticism usually stems from the following tweet and the silence after the invasion of Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493646431743356931
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493646431743356931
Thanks for the clarifying link. I still don't see the issue here... so he thought Russia was not about to invade Ukraine before it actually happened, but in fact he was very wrong? so?
He obviously had a negative opinion about the US government and very little trust for it, so he is quite biased, but that seems expected given his history. I don't read this as him somehow supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He obviously had a negative opinion about the US government and very little trust for it, so he is quite biased, but that seems expected given his history. I don't read this as him somehow supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Plus all he said was that the US gov provided insufficient evidence of their certainty that Russia was about to invade. I recall all the conservative media outlets at the time making fun of the man that gave the press release when a journalist asked him about evidence and he responded that the evidence was that he said that Russia was about to invade.
To be fair to him, the silence could fairly be interpreted as humility, particularly given the tweet with which he broke the silence:
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1498049577131208705
How else would the ruling class rule? This is how capitalism works.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say this is how authoritarianism works?
I believe USB5 is saying, given a ruling class that wants to rule, and a capitalist system, how would that ruling class rule? Cooperate control of the media seems like a good approach.
Can you a communist example where someone like Snowden was treated better?
In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
How does that square against every real-world example of communist government?
He just explained to you that there's no state in a comune. Therefore there can't be no such thing as a communist government. A communist country has no government.
You probably mean Marxist-Leninist "Communist" states. Those are centralised capitalist states, China, NK, etc. There a lot of explanations regarding why Marxist-Leninism only leads to a more centralised form of capitalism.
You probably mean Marxist-Leninist "Communist" states. Those are centralised capitalist states, China, NK, etc. There a lot of explanations regarding why Marxist-Leninism only leads to a more centralised form of capitalism.
There is no real-world example of a communist country under that definition. It is purely hypothetical and never been successfully applied. We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
>There is no real-world example of a communist country under that definition. It is purely hypothetical and never been successfully applied.
Communism is understood to be an ideal state (in the platonic sense of the word), it isn't meant to be achieved, more of a thought experiment or something to strive for.
>We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
Socialism. Socialism is different from Communism, it isn't an utopia or an ideal.
Where do you aim to take this conversation?
Communism is understood to be an ideal state (in the platonic sense of the word), it isn't meant to be achieved, more of a thought experiment or something to strive for.
>We can speculate about literally anything. What's realistic?
Socialism. Socialism is different from Communism, it isn't an utopia or an ideal.
Where do you aim to take this conversation?
The comment I was originally responding to implied that communism was a solution to the dangers of state surveillance and potential retaliation against a whistleblower like Snowden. Specifically, that this wouldn't even be a concern under communism. In my opinion it is unrealistic to assume that a nation will be able to self-govern without some governing organization that provides and enforces law in some form. I don't really understand what their point was when they said:
> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.
In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?
I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
> In a commune, there isn't a state which can secretly surveil in the first place, making the issue a moot point.
But I assume they had some point beyond snarky posturing, and they envision some version of the world where this is true. To try and understand their point, and to better understand how their vision of the world differs from what we currently have, I was trying to get them to anchor their abstract point in concrete examples. I also wonder if there is an inherent contradiction or at least cognitive blind-spot in their thinking because every time communism has actually been tried in the real world, it has led to the most highly surveilled states, not the least. Again, just empirically speaking. We can have the "no true Scotsman", "communism has never really been tried" all day, but again we're leaving reality for untested hypothesis.
In that context, your reply that a theoretical communist country would not have a government is a bit irrelevant to my purpose, because that is again an entirely hypothetical proposition with no precedent in reality. So what is real and worth discussing?
I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organized themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
I will have to point out that different people have made different comments in this thread. No one mentioned Communism before, user b59831. Furthermore the OP, just pointed out that Capitalism leads to surveillance. Which is necessary in a system where the few rule over the many.
Alternatively, in a system with more democracy, like Socialism. Where there isn't vast amounts of inequality, the surveillance state would have a hard time to exists.
My response was not irrelevant as your question contained a contradiction which I pointed out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that you are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy-fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy occurs, if and only if, the other person never defines what is a true Scotsman. I can give you concrete definitions with no logical contradictions, whether or not you accept them, that's on you.
>I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organised themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
It seems like you are going by the definition of Socialism that is common in the United States. The definition that says Socialism is when the government does stuff and you probably think Scandinavian countries are Socialists. Those countries are not Socialists, they are Capitalists. There are no currently existing Socialists countries. Here the definition so you don't accuse me of being Scottish, Socialism is when the workers (not the government) own the means of production. The so-called democracy of the workplace.
Alternatively, in a system with more democracy, like Socialism. Where there isn't vast amounts of inequality, the surveillance state would have a hard time to exists.
My response was not irrelevant as your question contained a contradiction which I pointed out.
Another thing I would like to point out, is that you are committing the "no true Scotsman"-fallacy-fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy occurs, if and only if, the other person never defines what is a true Scotsman. I can give you concrete definitions with no logical contradictions, whether or not you accept them, that's on you.
>I am aware of the difference between socialism and communism. I am aware of the many countries that have successfully organised themselves along broadly socialist lines (and I applaud them). But I think that still doesn't align with the original author's dismissive attitude as the presence, extent, and regulation of government surveillance is a topic that must still be addressed in those successful socialist countries. They still have a state that has the power to secretly surveil its citizens.
It seems like you are going by the definition of Socialism that is common in the United States. The definition that says Socialism is when the government does stuff and you probably think Scandinavian countries are Socialists. Those countries are not Socialists, they are Capitalists. There are no currently existing Socialists countries. Here the definition so you don't accuse me of being Scottish, Socialism is when the workers (not the government) own the means of production. The so-called democracy of the workplace.
i find these arguments quite amusing considering the lengths capitalists have gone to in sabotaging every attempt at socialism
False dichotomy
Yes, but you could slightly amend their statement to say "Can you name a non-capitalist government..." to remove the false dichotomy and preserve the original point of the question, right?
> Can you a communist example where someone like Snowden was treated better
That Isa false dichotomy
Being opposed to capitalism does not make one a communist.
There are more than two things
That Isa false dichotomy
Being opposed to capitalism does not make one a communist.
There are more than two things
I would say cronyism rather than capitalism, but I agree about the "ruling class" sentiment.
This is not my personal belief, my personal belief is a lot more nuanced than this, but I do find this to be a very compelling argument against him:
Snowden is a half-way martyr.
He made the decision to die for a cause, and then backed out of that decision and swore an oath of allegiance to modern day Hitler.
He showed an example of someone who didn't like the consequences of his actions and if you want to escape the consequences of your actions, you do that via corruption: swearing loyalty to someone powerful and reaping the benefits of that loyalty (them shielding you from consequences) in exchange for your servitude. In order to prevent being a victim of corruption, he chose to engage in corruption.
Him and Wikileaks together delegitimized the American government and ultimately created a fertile ground for a fascist to be elected president. (I think it's more arguable that Obama was the person who delegitimized the establishment).
His ultimate fate, to see his legacy largely ignored and unaddressed, to become a slave to a dictator, and to see that his oath of allegiance calls into question his sacrifice... I don't think America could have created a harsher punishment if we had tried.
I think America's founding fathers would understand and be sympathetic to his plight, but be disappointed.
FWIW, I have been in rooms talking about hardening infrastructure against government malfeasance. There were a lot of engineers at companies mentioned in prism docs that said "lets assume this is true, how did it happen," and worked on hardening infrastructure against the attacks they could imagine. So while outwardly his sacrifice seems largely in vain, it lives in the memory of many engineers who see hardening their systems against government action as a real importance many of whom donate to many organizations like the EFF.
Snowden is a half-way martyr.
He made the decision to die for a cause, and then backed out of that decision and swore an oath of allegiance to modern day Hitler.
He showed an example of someone who didn't like the consequences of his actions and if you want to escape the consequences of your actions, you do that via corruption: swearing loyalty to someone powerful and reaping the benefits of that loyalty (them shielding you from consequences) in exchange for your servitude. In order to prevent being a victim of corruption, he chose to engage in corruption.
Him and Wikileaks together delegitimized the American government and ultimately created a fertile ground for a fascist to be elected president. (I think it's more arguable that Obama was the person who delegitimized the establishment).
His ultimate fate, to see his legacy largely ignored and unaddressed, to become a slave to a dictator, and to see that his oath of allegiance calls into question his sacrifice... I don't think America could have created a harsher punishment if we had tried.
I think America's founding fathers would understand and be sympathetic to his plight, but be disappointed.
FWIW, I have been in rooms talking about hardening infrastructure against government malfeasance. There were a lot of engineers at companies mentioned in prism docs that said "lets assume this is true, how did it happen," and worked on hardening infrastructure against the attacks they could imagine. So while outwardly his sacrifice seems largely in vain, it lives in the memory of many engineers who see hardening their systems against government action as a real importance many of whom donate to many organizations like the EFF.
So the argument against him is that he isn't Socrates? He just wanted to get the truth out there and then beyond that minimize the damage to himself and his family, when he could/should have voluntarily become a full fledged martyr, for no extra benefit to anyone?
He could have followed legal whistleblower channels or went to Congress but chose not to.
I personally think this is ridiculous.
It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays for the livelihood of the people who work those whistleblower channels.
I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it.
There are no good answers.
It's not one person doing something bad, it's an entire powerful organization that pays for the livelihood of the people who work those whistleblower channels.
I have a hard time believing congress didn't authorize it in the first place. I am probably uninformed, but it seems reasonable and likely that prism is authorized directly by the patriot act. Congress told us they were going to do it, and they did it.
There are no good answers.
He did and was told to shut up. And how did it work out for the folks who pressed on?
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_...
> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
Those channels didn't work. I believe Thomas Drake used them and accomplished nothing.
Could you please cite where Thomas Drake used them? From my quick research it appears he went to the press.
I don't have sources at hand. I think I read a long time ago that he did use those channels, but I could certainly be wrong. I'm certain about having read knowledgeable claims that those channels didn't work, but if that wasn't about Thomas Drake, then I forgot the context.
Rereading, I think you're right. I should read up on this case more, never had heard of it.
There are two facts you have to reconcile with:
My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.
1. Snowden materially damaged the US government.
2. Snowden swore an oath of allegiance to the entity who most desires to damage the US government.
My personal opinion is likely closer to the idea that Snowden was a ethical person who wanted to do good, and he was handled as an asset by people who knew how to manipulate a desire to do good to achieve goals like chaos and distrust. That is a casual opinion, not informed by facts or significant research.
Strongly disagree on (1) being a fact: Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government. You argue that this made the "tree" weaker; I would counter that this actually gave an opportunity to fix and heal things (which was mostly squandered).
All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable).
I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
All that was damaged or lost was the pristine public image (which was a delusion in the first place and Snowden exposing it doesn't make him culpable).
I also dont get the whole "Snowden was a cleverly manipulated asset" attitude: Where is the evidence for that? This is exactly the kind of overcomplicated but soothing conjecture that conspiracies thrive on; Snowden put out concise and sensible descriptions of his motivations actions and timeline-- what makes you discard all that and suspect some grey eminence instead?
> Snowden basically exposed the rot in a branch of government.
What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
What we have learnt from the Snowden leaks as evidence by "what has changed" is that it wasnt a branch of government that is a problem, but the entire country its laws, its values and its people.
I will concede that where you put your point of origin determines how you measure the damage.
What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense.
I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them.
I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions.
> Where is the evidence for that?
I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence.
Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.
What I won't concede is that if you measure relative power between Russia and the US, Snowden's actions reduced US power and increased Russian power. Not in a values sense, but in a realpolitik sense.
I think he planted a seed in our rot which will eventually destroy us. I think that seed is in the form of a warning to people of good faith and good conscience that the government is not the place for them.
I think it is probably most correct to say that we are damaging ourselves in response to Snowden's actions.
> Where is the evidence for that?
I am pretty convinced wikileaks is/was/or became part of the Russian intelligence apparatus. Assange's second hand girl accompanying him to Russia is a tragic coincidence.
Ultimately this all comes down to trust. Who should I trust and why? I am amenable to your answer, but cautious of imparting trust to Snowden himself.
>I don't think America could have created a harsher punishment if we had tried.
Lol. After Assange/Manning, that demonstrates a singular failure of imagination.
Lol. After Assange/Manning, that demonstrates a singular failure of imagination.
The fact that he found refuge in Russia is a great tragedy. I strongly preferred that a European country had offered him refuge. Switzerland, perhaps? But US intelligence has long and strong arms, and I guess Russia seemed like the safest place at the time. And then Putin went full fascist and now he's stuck there.
Russia did not "seem like the safest place at the time". He was en-route to Ecuador from Hong Kong, with a layover in Moscow, when the US State Department canceled his passport. In a quite direct sense, the United States put him in Russia against his will.
> The fact that he found refuge in Russia is a great tragedy.
This really is the core of it. If it were anywhere but Russia, I would probably hail him as a hero who made a great sacrifice, but instead despite my general distrust and dislike of the US government, I feel like his motives deserve questioning.
I am open to being convinced that I am over emphasizing Russia. I am definitely no Snowden scholar and I'm not very well read past the various headlines and comments I've read over the years.
This really is the core of it. If it were anywhere but Russia, I would probably hail him as a hero who made a great sacrifice, but instead despite my general distrust and dislike of the US government, I feel like his motives deserve questioning.
I am open to being convinced that I am over emphasizing Russia. I am definitely no Snowden scholar and I'm not very well read past the various headlines and comments I've read over the years.
> swore an oath of allegiance to modern day Hitler
Any proof to back up this wild claim?
Any proof to back up this wild claim?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/02/edward-snowd...
Certainly it's debatable whether swearing an oath to Russia is the same as swearing an oath to Putin. I don't believe there's much of one.
Certainly it's debatable whether swearing an oath to Russia is the same as swearing an oath to Putin. I don't believe there's much of one.
That’s a pretty absurd way to frame becoming a citizen of a country he was involuntarily forced to live in so that he can’t be deported away from his own kids. It’s not like he decided to kneel before Putin and swear fealty.
Thanks for bringing some reason to the stupidest non-argument in this thread. GesWaPo = fake news.
That’s not the same at, he swore no oath to Putin.
He had no choice but to acquire a Russian citizenship since the US gov stranded him there. Unless you think rotting in a US super max prison for the rest of your life is a viable choice.
He blew the whistle and he doesn’t owe you anything and certainly doesn’t owe it to you to make a martyr of himself. Pathetic.
He had no choice but to acquire a Russian citizenship since the US gov stranded him there. Unless you think rotting in a US super max prison for the rest of your life is a viable choice.
He blew the whistle and he doesn’t owe you anything and certainly doesn’t owe it to you to make a martyr of himself. Pathetic.
I think the “wild claim” that evidence was being requested to substantiate was calling Putin a “modern day Hitler.”
He isn't, but he certainly seems to aspire to be. He's using some of the same arguments to invade other countries, talk of genocide in Russia is more open than it was in Nazi-Germany, and he seems to want a lot more war than just the current one. He's fortunately a lot more limited in his resources and lacks Hitler's charisma. But he's open about his admiration of Stalin.
The comparison might not be entirely spot-on, but it's not that far off either.
The comparison might not be entirely spot-on, but it's not that far off either.
It's a thought-terminating cliche.
No, learning from history is vital, so we don't repeat the same mistake. The similarities are obvious. Our thought should be about what we're going to do about it. Saying it's not that serious is the thought-terminating cliche.
> Saying it's not that serious is the thought-terminating cliche.
Exactly. Such tactic if reducing seriousness can be also used to promote future crimes. Hitler didn’t became ‘Hitler as we know him’ in one day. There were stages of ‘progress’.
Exactly. Such tactic if reducing seriousness can be also used to promote future crimes. Hitler didn’t became ‘Hitler as we know him’ in one day. There were stages of ‘progress’.
Godwins law has existed for a while now.
The only thing Putin has in common with Hitler is being a jerk. There's no commonality between Nazi ideology and the Russian state, and beating the nazis is a huge part of their national identity.
Hilariously, you're more likely to find Nazi fans in the Ukranian militias.
The only thing Putin has in common with Hitler is being a jerk. There's no commonality between Nazi ideology and the Russian state, and beating the nazis is a huge part of their national identity.
Hilariously, you're more likely to find Nazi fans in the Ukranian militias.
Godwin's Law does not mean we're not allowed to address fascism anymore. In fact, Mike Godwin himself, who coined that law, has said Putin reminds him of Hitler, that it's okay to call Trump a fascist, and when Biden spoke of semi-fascism, Mike Godwin condemned the use of "semi".
Do not let some internet meme stop you from identifying fascism when it's real.
That Putin doesn't use the symbolism is irrelevant. That he's doing similar actions is what should concern you.
Do not let some internet meme stop you from identifying fascism when it's real.
That Putin doesn't use the symbolism is irrelevant. That he's doing similar actions is what should concern you.
Fascism doesn't mean "bad", "warlike" or "current American enemy". It was a specific ideology that Russia does not promote today, whatever their other faults.
> Fascism doesn't mean "bad", "warlike" or "current American enemy".
Indeed it does not. In fact, the US itself has had its share of fascist tendencies.
Fascism is a specific ideology, and while Putin does not officially subscribe to that ideology, in practice he operates like he does. As did Stalin.
Mind you, not all fascism is Nazism either. There's a difference between Hitler's fascism and Mussolini's fascism. Franco's fascism wasn't even warlike. There's room for differences. But Stalin and Putin are sufficiently similar to put them in the same corner.
But let's talk definitions, shall we? I'm using Umberto Eco's definition because it's well known, and established well before Putin came to power, so not tailored to him in any way:
> "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
Putin absolutely does this. He's constantly claiming traditional values, is best buds with the leader of the Russian Orthodox church, etc.
> "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
Again, Putin does this. He rejects many modern concepts like equality, rule of law, LGBTQ rights, free press, etc.
> "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
His war has certainly become a case of action for action's sake, lacking very clear goals. He isn't fully anti-intellectual and does use some highly conservative intellectuals, but he does attack modern aspects of western culture and science.
> "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
Definitely. Dissenters find themselves falling out of windows. You're not allowed to disagree. Russian media are fully state-controlled now and only allowed to say what Putin wants. There's no room for intellectual discourse or critical reasoning in Russia.
> "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Russia being a multicultural empire isn't as racist as the Nazis were (though non-ethnic Russians do seem to be second class citizens), but he does instill fear of foreign connections, and Russian organisations that he doesn't like are often branded foreign agents. Other differences he strongly opposes are of course LGBTQ people.
> "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
I'm not sure how big of an issue this is in Russia. Is there even a middle class? He does promise them food on the table if they leave the politics to him.
> "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
This one is pretty clear. Everything is an American plot to him. Ukrainian people can't possibly want freedom by themselves, it has to be an American plot. He's hyping up NATO as a threat, claiming to already be at war with NATO in order to justify his war on Ukraine. It's less of an internal thing than with the Nazis, though. Except of course that any Russian who disagrees with him is proof of this foreign plot.
> Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
He does this. He keeps saying the West is decadent and destroying itself, while simultaneously branding it as a threat to unite against.
> "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
Putin has been talking about the prospect of decades of war. I think it's unfair to count his mobilization towards this, as mobilization is common in many countries. Although in his case it's for an offensive war, of course. However, I can't help but think of the letter of a Russian wife who wrote to her husband to rape some Ukrainian women. There's a horrific obsession with dehumanising violence there.
> "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Less sure about this one, except maybe in painting outsiders as decadent and weak. I don't think today's Russia is as hierarchical as Nazi-Germany or Stalin's USSR was. Though he does like to surround himself with macho oligarchs and strongmen.
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
Not sure about this one either. He certainly expects Russians to be eager to die, and the Russian death count in the assault on Bakhmut is staggering, but I'm not sure that counts as a cult of death. This is one that Ukraine sounds more guilty of. But then, they kinda need to in order to keep morale high in the defense of their country. Ukraine didn't choose this conflict.
> "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
We've seen him bare-chested on a horse, right? He certainly loves his machismo. As does Trump, by the way.
> "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
Also less the case, I think. He even held some fake referenda. I'm not sure to what extent he claims to speak for all Russians.
> "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
I don't speak Russian, so I can't tell. Well, "war" is a "special military operation", so there's that.
Still, Putin hits most of these points. Some of them very hard.
Indeed it does not. In fact, the US itself has had its share of fascist tendencies.
Fascism is a specific ideology, and while Putin does not officially subscribe to that ideology, in practice he operates like he does. As did Stalin.
Mind you, not all fascism is Nazism either. There's a difference between Hitler's fascism and Mussolini's fascism. Franco's fascism wasn't even warlike. There's room for differences. But Stalin and Putin are sufficiently similar to put them in the same corner.
But let's talk definitions, shall we? I'm using Umberto Eco's definition because it's well known, and established well before Putin came to power, so not tailored to him in any way:
> "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
Putin absolutely does this. He's constantly claiming traditional values, is best buds with the leader of the Russian Orthodox church, etc.
> "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
Again, Putin does this. He rejects many modern concepts like equality, rule of law, LGBTQ rights, free press, etc.
> "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
His war has certainly become a case of action for action's sake, lacking very clear goals. He isn't fully anti-intellectual and does use some highly conservative intellectuals, but he does attack modern aspects of western culture and science.
> "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
Definitely. Dissenters find themselves falling out of windows. You're not allowed to disagree. Russian media are fully state-controlled now and only allowed to say what Putin wants. There's no room for intellectual discourse or critical reasoning in Russia.
> "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Russia being a multicultural empire isn't as racist as the Nazis were (though non-ethnic Russians do seem to be second class citizens), but he does instill fear of foreign connections, and Russian organisations that he doesn't like are often branded foreign agents. Other differences he strongly opposes are of course LGBTQ people.
> "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
I'm not sure how big of an issue this is in Russia. Is there even a middle class? He does promise them food on the table if they leave the politics to him.
> "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
This one is pretty clear. Everything is an American plot to him. Ukrainian people can't possibly want freedom by themselves, it has to be an American plot. He's hyping up NATO as a threat, claiming to already be at war with NATO in order to justify his war on Ukraine. It's less of an internal thing than with the Nazis, though. Except of course that any Russian who disagrees with him is proof of this foreign plot.
> Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
He does this. He keeps saying the West is decadent and destroying itself, while simultaneously branding it as a threat to unite against.
> "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
Putin has been talking about the prospect of decades of war. I think it's unfair to count his mobilization towards this, as mobilization is common in many countries. Although in his case it's for an offensive war, of course. However, I can't help but think of the letter of a Russian wife who wrote to her husband to rape some Ukrainian women. There's a horrific obsession with dehumanising violence there.
> "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
Less sure about this one, except maybe in painting outsiders as decadent and weak. I don't think today's Russia is as hierarchical as Nazi-Germany or Stalin's USSR was. Though he does like to surround himself with macho oligarchs and strongmen.
> "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
Not sure about this one either. He certainly expects Russians to be eager to die, and the Russian death count in the assault on Bakhmut is staggering, but I'm not sure that counts as a cult of death. This is one that Ukraine sounds more guilty of. But then, they kinda need to in order to keep morale high in the defense of their country. Ukraine didn't choose this conflict.
> "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
We've seen him bare-chested on a horse, right? He certainly loves his machismo. As does Trump, by the way.
> "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
Also less the case, I think. He even held some fake referenda. I'm not sure to what extent he claims to speak for all Russians.
> "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
I don't speak Russian, so I can't tell. Well, "war" is a "special military operation", so there's that.
Still, Putin hits most of these points. Some of them very hard.
"modern day Hitler"
Just curious, do you consider Bush, who started the Iraq war, to be a modern Hitler too?
Just curious, do you consider Bush, who started the Iraq war, to be a modern Hitler too?
No. But I do think he's a war criminal who irreparably damaged this country in countless ways and not subjecting himself to the ICC is a denial of everything America says it represents.
Bush did more damage to America than Russia could ever hope to have done. I think he damaged America more than Trump.
I think America's time in Iraq was not fundamentally genocidal and I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home so I think it falls short of "Hitler". While we did destroy the regime, I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi." I could be convinced that we were worse than I think.
Bush did more damage to America than Russia could ever hope to have done. I think he damaged America more than Trump.
I think America's time in Iraq was not fundamentally genocidal and I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home so I think it falls short of "Hitler". While we did destroy the regime, I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi." I could be convinced that we were worse than I think.
I think you are using 'genocidal' frivolously here.
'I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi."'
That's not what genocide is.[0] Destroying 'notions' isn't a genocide. (That's without delving into argument of whether or not Putin's actions fit such description.)
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
"I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home"
I don't think there was much opposition[1] thanks to American free mass media[2] and ones who did protest occasionally got arrested. [3][4] Situation in Russia now is harsher, of course, but still.
"I could be convinced that we were worse than I think."
Don't really want to, my point is that Hitler has set a pretty high bar and both Bush and Putin failed to reach it. So far at least :( Look at the genocide in Rwanda, that's what qualifies as a good attempt.
As a side note, do you remember Bush's Freudian slip when he said Iraq instead of Ukraine? The laugh in the audience is pretty disturbing [5]. I'd expect somber silence full of regret.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/sprj.irq.antiw...
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sproj.irq.peace.protest...
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo
'I don't think we tried to destroy the notion of "iraq" or of being "iraqi."'
That's not what genocide is.[0] Destroying 'notions' isn't a genocide. (That's without delving into argument of whether or not Putin's actions fit such description.)
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
"I don't remember America violently putting down opposition to the war at home"
I don't think there was much opposition[1] thanks to American free mass media[2] and ones who did protest occasionally got arrested. [3][4] Situation in Russia now is harsher, of course, but still.
"I could be convinced that we were worse than I think."
Don't really want to, my point is that Hitler has set a pretty high bar and both Bush and Putin failed to reach it. So far at least :( Look at the genocide in Rwanda, that's what qualifies as a good attempt.
As a side note, do you remember Bush's Freudian slip when he said Iraq instead of Ukraine? The laugh in the audience is pretty disturbing [5]. I'd expect somber silence full of regret.
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/sprj.irq.antiw...
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sproj.irq.peace.protest...
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo
Why is he using it frivolously? He says Bush didn't do any of those things.
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Keep in mind: Putin does do these things. Ukrainian children are separated from their families and placed with Russian families to be raised as Russians. That's genocide. Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported and made to live as Russians on the other side of Russia, separate from other Ukrainians. There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed. And we've seen the result of massacres.
Sure, Putin doesn't do industrial scale murder of millions the way Hitler did, but as you point out, genocide is broader than that.
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Keep in mind: Putin does do these things. Ukrainian children are separated from their families and placed with Russian families to be raised as Russians. That's genocide. Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported and made to live as Russians on the other side of Russia, separate from other Ukrainians. There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed. And we've seen the result of massacres.
Sure, Putin doesn't do industrial scale murder of millions the way Hitler did, but as you point out, genocide is broader than that.
> Why is he using it frivolously? He says Bush didn't do any of those things.
Exactly. He doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter for russian propaganda which is known for intentional twisting facts and expressions and making their opponent to explain obvious lies. Russian propaganda uses such twisting as en excuse to promote their narrative even if unrelated.
The initial question about Bush was invented in order to shift the discussion from undesired topic and deliver narrative in which actions of Bush and putin would look similar which is intentional lie to cover genocide actions performed by russia in Ukraine.
Exactly. He doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter for russian propaganda which is known for intentional twisting facts and expressions and making their opponent to explain obvious lies. Russian propaganda uses such twisting as en excuse to promote their narrative even if unrelated.
The initial question about Bush was invented in order to shift the discussion from undesired topic and deliver narrative in which actions of Bush and putin would look similar which is intentional lie to cover genocide actions performed by russia in Ukraine.
I think it is less to shift discussion and more as a justification in order to avoid responsibility. If we are all evil genocidal imperialists, then it is just a matter of who is the most effective evil genocidal imperialist, not a discussion about genocide or imperialism and how to stop it.
I think it is about avoiding personal responsibility more than it is about a desire to spread propaganda. Alternatively, it might be about showing that ones side is powerful and willing to fight.
If American elections are a sham, then it justifies Russia's sham elections.
If Americans don't get a say in how they are ruled, then Russian citizens don't have to be upset or take responsibility for their own lack of say in how they are ruled.
If America invades Iraq, that justifies China's pending invasion of Taiwan or Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
The battlefield is going to be the arbiter of whether Taiwan is part of china or not too.
These people live in a fundamentally "us vs them" world and frame every problem in terms of a "them." The question is how do we got from "us vs them" to "us vs the problem" or said a different way: justice for all.
I think it is about avoiding personal responsibility more than it is about a desire to spread propaganda. Alternatively, it might be about showing that ones side is powerful and willing to fight.
If American elections are a sham, then it justifies Russia's sham elections.
If Americans don't get a say in how they are ruled, then Russian citizens don't have to be upset or take responsibility for their own lack of say in how they are ruled.
If America invades Iraq, that justifies China's pending invasion of Taiwan or Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
The battlefield is going to be the arbiter of whether Taiwan is part of china or not too.
These people live in a fundamentally "us vs them" world and frame every problem in terms of a "them." The question is how do we got from "us vs them" to "us vs the problem" or said a different way: justice for all.
>I think it is less to shift discussion and more as a justification in order to avoid responsibility.
I agree. This way is more precise or I can reformulate what I’ve said this way: shift discussion toward justification to avoid responsibility.
> I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
well, I know the feeling. Actually it’s the goal of propagandists to create such regret and more preferably a desperation with lack of wish to fight for reason to prevail. They try to exhaust opponent by intentionally saying some bs and forcing opponent to explain obvious things while push their lies and mostly ignoring the answers.
On the other hand I should say that I enjoyed reading your argument and the very fact that propaganda was met with a proper response done in good faith. I think this keeps hope and light to those who read it. At least it has this effect for me and I am thankful to you for your efforts.
>The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
Unfortunately.
It is still a question what to do with intentional propagandists. Giving them answers that are blocking their ability to spread another lie is degrading the discussion. Giving them proper answers feeds them with grounds to push their narrative more.
Perhaps in a discussions with such people we should pronounce that we kind of know what they are doing and address the core of their motivations instead of the topic itself which they aren’t discussing properly anyway. I am not sure it will work and still looking for a better solution.
I agree. This way is more precise or I can reformulate what I’ve said this way: shift discussion toward justification to avoid responsibility.
> I kind of knew what that person was doing, and engaged with it in good faith anyway, which I regretted.
well, I know the feeling. Actually it’s the goal of propagandists to create such regret and more preferably a desperation with lack of wish to fight for reason to prevail. They try to exhaust opponent by intentionally saying some bs and forcing opponent to explain obvious things while push their lies and mostly ignoring the answers.
On the other hand I should say that I enjoyed reading your argument and the very fact that propaganda was met with a proper response done in good faith. I think this keeps hope and light to those who read it. At least it has this effect for me and I am thankful to you for your efforts.
>The sad part is that when you run into someone like this person, the battlefield is the only way to resolve the dispute.
Unfortunately.
It is still a question what to do with intentional propagandists. Giving them answers that are blocking their ability to spread another lie is degrading the discussion. Giving them proper answers feeds them with grounds to push their narrative more.
Perhaps in a discussions with such people we should pronounce that we kind of know what they are doing and address the core of their motivations instead of the topic itself which they aren’t discussing properly anyway. I am not sure it will work and still looking for a better solution.
"Ukrainian children are separated from their families"
Really? Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place? Calling that a 'genocide' is cynical distortion and serves only Ukrainian propaganda.
"Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported "
"Reportedly"?
"and made to live as Russians"
What does it even mean? Drinking vodka and playing balalaika?
"There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed."
"Plenty"? I don't know what you are talking about but just go to Ukrainian segment of Facebook, which allowed hate speech against Russians, and tons of genocidal fantasies.
Really? Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place? Calling that a 'genocide' is cynical distortion and serves only Ukrainian propaganda.
"Adult Ukrainians have reportedly also been deported "
"Reportedly"?
"and made to live as Russians"
What does it even mean? Drinking vodka and playing balalaika?
"There's plenty of talk in the Russian media that all Ukrainians believe Ukrainian is a valid ethnicity should be killed."
"Plenty"? I don't know what you are talking about but just go to Ukrainian segment of Facebook, which allowed hate speech against Russians, and tons of genocidal fantasies.
> Would you leave an orphan in the war zone or move them to a safe place?
No, I would reunite them with their families. Intentionally refusing to do so and leaving them with Russian families to raise as Russians is genocide. You don't get to whitewash that.
This is not some people on Facebook; the UN has condemned it, the ICC issued arrest warrants, it's widely documented. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russia... for some sources.
Same with the other stuff. Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.
No, I would reunite them with their families. Intentionally refusing to do so and leaving them with Russian families to raise as Russians is genocide. You don't get to whitewash that.
This is not some people on Facebook; the UN has condemned it, the ICC issued arrest warrants, it's widely documented. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russia... for some sources.
Same with the other stuff. Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.
> Your rhetoric doesn't change the facts.
Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukr...
7 countries voted that it is, and prominent historians at ivy league institutions (you know those one's people badly want to get into so they can learn from the worlds top experts) have said it definitely is.
As far as I'm concerned the matter is pretty settled.
The person you're talking to doesn't have any desire at all in understanding you, nor do they have any desire to create the best argument against themselves and respond to that.
Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukr...
7 countries voted that it is, and prominent historians at ivy league institutions (you know those one's people badly want to get into so they can learn from the worlds top experts) have said it definitely is.
As far as I'm concerned the matter is pretty settled.
The person you're talking to doesn't have any desire at all in understanding you, nor do they have any desire to create the best argument against themselves and respond to that.
>Once you understand someone is delusional, there is no point.
it’s not a delusion. it’s typical russian propaganda tactics. explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224
it’s not a delusion. it’s typical russian propaganda tactics. explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270224
Delusion:
Delusion in the form of denial is a natural response to grief. "This entity that I am apart of is doing something heinously evil" would naturally cause grief. I experienced grief in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan because I believed my country was doing something evil.
Denial is the first stage of grief, and I think we are seeing denial in the form of delusion, delusion supported by propaganda.
A false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially
in mental conditions.
Delusion in the form of denial is a natural response to grief. "This entity that I am apart of is doing something heinously evil" would naturally cause grief. I experienced grief in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan because I believed my country was doing something evil.
Denial is the first stage of grief, and I think we are seeing denial in the form of delusion, delusion supported by propaganda.
And some were reunited even the wiki article you linked to says so.
"7 countries voted that it is"
That's 7 out 193 countries. Hmm, I wonder why.
By the way, the Ukraine itself didn't recognize the obvious genocide of Armenians by Turkey during WW1.[0] Countries can be very flexible when recognizing or not recognizing something as genocide is in their interest.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Internationa...
That's 7 out 193 countries. Hmm, I wonder why.
By the way, the Ukraine itself didn't recognize the obvious genocide of Armenians by Turkey during WW1.[0] Countries can be very flexible when recognizing or not recognizing something as genocide is in their interest.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Internationa...
I'm sure you understand why. Ukraine is in a vulnerable position right now and needs all the allies it can get. Alienating Turkey would be foolish. And considering the Armenian genocide happened a long time ago, it's not exactly worth it to bring this up now. Turkey, especially under Erdogan, is definitely a problematic country, but not one that either Ukraine or NATO can afford to alienate right now. Current issues take precedence over the atrocities of the past.
"I'm sure you understand why. Ukraine is in a vulnerable position right now"
Seriously? The Ukraine had over 30 years of independence for that.
Seriously? The Ukraine had over 30 years of independence for that.
He's a traitor that defected to Russia, what's not to love???
Prevented from flying anywhere outside of Russia during a layover != defected. He's not there by choice as long as the choice is: stay in Russia and use political optics to safely criticize Putin's regime, or leave Russia and rot in prison away from his family for the rest of his life.
Are you American?
Snowden released unredacted classified documents that lead to real-world damage and potentially casualties. Compare that to wikileaks which redacted locations, IP addresses and other sensitive information.
He wasn't a hacker by any means. He was a lowly SharePoint admin that was rumoured to have been coerced remotely by the Russians.
He was angry with the NSA for being denied a promotion for TAO which drove him over the edge.
It isn't hard to theorize that Russian and Chinese assets lurk the corners of chatrooms, looking for depressed/vulnerable US assets to coerce and corrupt. Money well spent for the West's enemies.
If a single American intelligence asset lost their life because of Snowden's leaks would your opinion change?
Snowden released unredacted classified documents that lead to real-world damage and potentially casualties. Compare that to wikileaks which redacted locations, IP addresses and other sensitive information.
He wasn't a hacker by any means. He was a lowly SharePoint admin that was rumoured to have been coerced remotely by the Russians.
He was angry with the NSA for being denied a promotion for TAO which drove him over the edge.
It isn't hard to theorize that Russian and Chinese assets lurk the corners of chatrooms, looking for depressed/vulnerable US assets to coerce and corrupt. Money well spent for the West's enemies.
If a single American intelligence asset lost their life because of Snowden's leaks would your opinion change?
Snowden released his intel to a single journalist each from two highly respected publications, The Washington Post and The Guardian. Releases to the general public were made in those publications only, according to the judgement and discretion of those journalists. It was the model of responsible disclosure.
Can you point to a specific article in the Washington Post or The Guardian which you believe lead to casualties?
(The rest of your comment is rumor, wild speculation, and in the case of 'lowly sharepoint admin', outright misrepresentation)
Can you point to a specific article in the Washington Post or The Guardian which you believe lead to casualties?
(The rest of your comment is rumor, wild speculation, and in the case of 'lowly sharepoint admin', outright misrepresentation)
Model of responsible disclosure according to whom?
Do you realistically think the Washington Post or The Guardian would make Snowden look bad by aligning IC asset fatalities with his leaks? I doubt it.
Consider this: IP addresses and devices of Western assets were leaked in the documents. Counter-intelligence can use those to correlate known or suspected IC assets. This has real-world consequences.
The way Intelligence works is much more shrouded in secrecy. Everyone in the know knows he had privileged access via his job and leaked the entirety of the documents without redactions because he was mad at being passed up for the TAO job. His bosses were interviewed which confirms my statements - 1
Swift on Security is an example of a Twitter account with connections to IC. Her statements on the subject echo how the industry feels about Snowden. - 2
1/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/what-snowden-get...
2/ https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/64971712356500684...
Do you realistically think the Washington Post or The Guardian would make Snowden look bad by aligning IC asset fatalities with his leaks? I doubt it.
Consider this: IP addresses and devices of Western assets were leaked in the documents. Counter-intelligence can use those to correlate known or suspected IC assets. This has real-world consequences.
The way Intelligence works is much more shrouded in secrecy. Everyone in the know knows he had privileged access via his job and leaked the entirety of the documents without redactions because he was mad at being passed up for the TAO job. His bosses were interviewed which confirms my statements - 1
Swift on Security is an example of a Twitter account with connections to IC. Her statements on the subject echo how the industry feels about Snowden. - 2
1/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/what-snowden-get...
2/ https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/64971712356500684...
So to be clear, you assert, entirely without evidence, that Snowden leaked the documents to someone other than The Guardian / WaPo? And you further assert without evidence that these leaks included IP addresses? And your source is "everyone in the know knows", despite being "shrouded in secrecy"? We are to take the statements of NSA officials, the very ones humiliated by his leaks, at face value? Forgive my skepticism!
Also your Slate.com link contradicts your explanation for his ostensible disgruntlement - Ctl-F "TAO offered him a job". Not that it ever made the slightest bit of sense in the first place - who would banish themselves from their homeland over that? Snowden's character study is as crystal-clear as it is inconvenient to the NSA: the man was an idealist.
Also your Slate.com link contradicts your explanation for his ostensible disgruntlement - Ctl-F "TAO offered him a job". Not that it ever made the slightest bit of sense in the first place - who would banish themselves from their homeland over that? Snowden's character study is as crystal-clear as it is inconvenient to the NSA: the man was an idealist.
I‘m glad that Snowden revealed the injustices committed towards people around the world; even allies to the United States. Spying on the general public of democratic countries like my country Germany and their elected leaders is a no-no, and it doesn’t matter if a few American intelligence assets lost their life. They played with fire when they joined the criminal organizations and paid the price for it.
Do you think Germany's intelligence operations are any more different or virtuous? Or it's neighbours to you?
To be honest, he has kind of defected. Yes, he didn't mean to go to Russia initially, but he's chosen to remain there, knowing that the Russians can throw him in the jail whenever they want. By remaining there he's turned himself into Kremlin puppet, to all effects and purposes.
He chose to stay in Russia instead of facing a sham trial in America, what a traitor.
> he's chosen to remain there, knowing that the Russians can throw him in the jail whenever they want
It’s not like he has any good options. I don’t blame him for staying in Russia.
It’s not like he has any good options. I don’t blame him for staying in Russia.
I do. I think turning himself in would have been more honourable, in my opinion.
Sacrificing one’s entire life to live in exile to expose is criminal government is plenty honorable.
Frankly as a non American I don’t know why you’re weighing in so strongly on this.
Frankly as a non American I don’t know why you’re weighing in so strongly on this.
You're free to take his place. Why don't you volunteer? It would be the honorable thing to do.
Except that you can't take his place.
He seems to have had the much better option of China, but refused it.
I believe he was trying to go elsewhere, but got stuck in Sheremetevo airport because the U.S. disabled his passport before he could board a flight to Hong Kong (or elsewhere, I don't recall where)
> or elsewhere, I don't recall where
Ecuador
Ecuador
In what way? Has he said or done anything that makes him seem like a Russian puppet to you? I don't see how being physically located somewhere means you support or agree with them.
He's a hostage. Everything he says or does has been vetted by his captors, i.e. the Kremlin. That's a puppet.
The lengths that the "good guys" will go to in order to spy on the "bad guys" and how they'll be lying into their graves about it.
You can't trust a single word intelligence agencies say. We have no idea what they are collecting, how it is stored, indexed, searched, or used, or how long. They actively deny operations they are currently engaged in, i.e. they lie, at the highest levels.
There are only technical limitations imposed by computational resources. Which aren't really limitations when they have effectively infinite funding at this point.
They've infiltrated hardware; inserted backdoors, not just at telcos, but into privately-developed and owned locations.
They consider encryption to be a stumbling block and are willing to intervene to weaken it to serve their purposes.
Absolutely shitbirds, all. I don't care what their ends are, their means are to create a digital dystopia that simply cannot be trusted. They basically broke tech; usurped it to serve the power structure. And so many people and companies went along with, are going along with, and are enriching themselves by doing so.
This future sucks. I hate my own devices.
You can't trust a single word intelligence agencies say. We have no idea what they are collecting, how it is stored, indexed, searched, or used, or how long. They actively deny operations they are currently engaged in, i.e. they lie, at the highest levels.
There are only technical limitations imposed by computational resources. Which aren't really limitations when they have effectively infinite funding at this point.
They've infiltrated hardware; inserted backdoors, not just at telcos, but into privately-developed and owned locations.
They consider encryption to be a stumbling block and are willing to intervene to weaken it to serve their purposes.
Absolutely shitbirds, all. I don't care what their ends are, their means are to create a digital dystopia that simply cannot be trusted. They basically broke tech; usurped it to serve the power structure. And so many people and companies went along with, are going along with, and are enriching themselves by doing so.
This future sucks. I hate my own devices.
> This future sucks. I hate my own devices.
Installing GrapheneOS on my Pixel was the closest I'm come to feeling like having an actual PDA I could trust and living in a cool future. But of course it's still on Google hardware, so it's not trustworthy. And it still requires apps, some of which are not trustworthy. And, worst of all, I still have to communicate with other people on their phones, which voids most privacy efforts. I don't even give new friends my real phone number because I can't trust their contacts list not to be shared with everybody who wants to buy it.
Installing GrapheneOS on my Pixel was the closest I'm come to feeling like having an actual PDA I could trust and living in a cool future. But of course it's still on Google hardware, so it's not trustworthy. And it still requires apps, some of which are not trustworthy. And, worst of all, I still have to communicate with other people on their phones, which voids most privacy efforts. I don't even give new friends my real phone number because I can't trust their contacts list not to be shared with everybody who wants to buy it.
It also, no doubt, relies on a Google-signed blob to enforce Secure Boot that is signed by Google. Where do you think that "This device has secure boot disabled" or "This device is running a custom image..." (can't remember exact terminology) warning comes from... So, in theory, Google could make a signed blob that unlocked secure boot if the government really wanted it anyway.
> in theory, Google could make a signed blob that unlocked secure boot if the government really wanted it anyway
Iff the design is secure with regards to storing the secret used to unlock user data, then Google signing a blob to unlock signed boot for a new arbitrary image still wouldn't allow that new image to spill existing user data. (I have no idea if this is actually the case though)
Iff the design is secure with regards to storing the secret used to unlock user data, then Google signing a blob to unlock signed boot for a new arbitrary image still wouldn't allow that new image to spill existing user data. (I have no idea if this is actually the case though)
Gosh I hope that's the case, because this is all too arcane for me.
This sounds like too much work. Just use the phone of the old lady across the street.
You can't become early man.
The thing I've never really understood about this is... to what end? I get that, on a philosophical level, it sucks that in theory your privacy can be violated and that choice has been taken from you.
But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
Don't get me wrong, it's not to say we shouldn't advocate for govt. orgs not doing this sort of thing - but I also don't know why you'd spend so much time and mental energy trying to avoid a theoretical bogeyman.
But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
Don't get me wrong, it's not to say we shouldn't advocate for govt. orgs not doing this sort of thing - but I also don't know why you'd spend so much time and mental energy trying to avoid a theoretical bogeyman.
This is similar to the flawed "nothing to hide" argument. "Nothing to fear"?
Data is eternal, and is analyzed and aggregated forever. Just because there's nothing realistically to fear _today_, doesn't mean that a future AI won't find reasons in that data to label you a terrorist/murderer/wrongthinker, and apply whatever policies are deemed acceptable at that time. We're really not far off from a Minority Report future.
This may happen by accident, BTW. "Whoops, we sentenced you to prison on a wrong conviction" happens far too frequently. People spend decades getting out of the system once they're already in it, and lives are ruined by this.
You can think of all this as hypothetical, but realistically, there are other concerns as well. Do you trust your government to keep the data they collect on you safe from corporations and other governments? Aside from the top intelligence echelons—and maybe not even those, I'm not sure—governments are awful at information security. Data leaks can happen anytime without your awareness, at which point you can only hope that you're not an interesting target for whoever now has access.
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Criti...
Data is eternal, and is analyzed and aggregated forever. Just because there's nothing realistically to fear _today_, doesn't mean that a future AI won't find reasons in that data to label you a terrorist/murderer/wrongthinker, and apply whatever policies are deemed acceptable at that time. We're really not far off from a Minority Report future.
This may happen by accident, BTW. "Whoops, we sentenced you to prison on a wrong conviction" happens far too frequently. People spend decades getting out of the system once they're already in it, and lives are ruined by this.
You can think of all this as hypothetical, but realistically, there are other concerns as well. Do you trust your government to keep the data they collect on you safe from corporations and other governments? Aside from the top intelligence echelons—and maybe not even those, I'm not sure—governments are awful at information security. Data leaks can happen anytime without your awareness, at which point you can only hope that you're not an interesting target for whoever now has access.
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Criti...
> But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
Because, one day, you will make a mistake or say something wrong. And then they will correlate this wirh all the information they have about you.
Remember NKVD ? Remember STASI ? Remember Gestapo ? Remember CIA ?
Because, one day, you will make a mistake or say something wrong. And then they will correlate this wirh all the information they have about you.
Remember NKVD ? Remember STASI ? Remember Gestapo ? Remember CIA ?
Currently in the United States, several people who organized a bail fund for protesters are sitting in jail on terrorism charges.
In the 50s, people who organized civil rights bail funds were called in front of the Anti-American Activities Committee to be blacklisted from their careers and communities.
If anything, privacy is incredibly important because the powers at be continue to prove they will use state-sanctioned violence against people who protest these systems. We like to tell ourselves its only those other bad countries, but rights in the US are just as delicate. Enough money or power behind a charge and you have to real ability to uphold your rights.
In the 50s, people who organized civil rights bail funds were called in front of the Anti-American Activities Committee to be blacklisted from their careers and communities.
If anything, privacy is incredibly important because the powers at be continue to prove they will use state-sanctioned violence against people who protest these systems. We like to tell ourselves its only those other bad countries, but rights in the US are just as delicate. Enough money or power behind a charge and you have to real ability to uphold your rights.
I always wonder about consequences for today's children. One can't take away those things from them as all friends use it, but who knows who might have all the information about them in 50 years time, for whatever purpose.
All the information on who they are friends with, where they hang out, maybe even contents of images or text messages, the searches they did on the net. In a period of the life where the try out many things and often are curious. And then combined with details about their whole life and career.
All the information on who they are friends with, where they hang out, maybe even contents of images or text messages, the searches they did on the net. In a period of the life where the try out many things and often are curious. And then combined with details about their whole life and career.
> One can't take away those things from them as all friends use it
I personally assure you that you can. You also don’t need to have cable tv, YouTube or unlimited video games. The positive impacts can be significant
I denied cellphones, live tv, anything with ads, unfiltered internet, Roblox, TikTok and many other things until they were 16+ and could demonstrate self restraint and future-oriented decision making abilities.
Don’t abdicate your responsibility to your own flesh and blood to anyone.
I personally assure you that you can. You also don’t need to have cable tv, YouTube or unlimited video games. The positive impacts can be significant
I denied cellphones, live tv, anything with ads, unfiltered internet, Roblox, TikTok and many other things until they were 16+ and could demonstrate self restraint and future-oriented decision making abilities.
Don’t abdicate your responsibility to your own flesh and blood to anyone.
I've largely removed ads from my life about 5 years ago. I've saved so much money not being manipulated into wanting something I didn't really want and certainly don't need.
> Wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
Every time government abuses its power and isn't held accountable, the likelihood of future abuses goes up. Eventually the frog is fully boiled, and "wildly unlikely" becomes "commonplace."
Every time government abuses its power and isn't held accountable, the likelihood of future abuses goes up. Eventually the frog is fully boiled, and "wildly unlikely" becomes "commonplace."
> But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
Even assuming that's true for an ordinary person, which I don't think it is, let's consider what constitutes an ordinary person. Maybe it has no effect - if you never run for office. Or if you never participate in a political campaign. Or if you never challenge the political status quo with direct action. Or if you never run a business and express views that could be viewed as potentially threatening the status quo. Et cetera. In other words, it's fine if we're controlled as long as you're ok being controlled. But if you think, "I'd like things to be different," you're in danger, because the police and other government orgs know everything about you.
Even assuming that's true for an ordinary person, which I don't think it is, let's consider what constitutes an ordinary person. Maybe it has no effect - if you never run for office. Or if you never participate in a political campaign. Or if you never challenge the political status quo with direct action. Or if you never run a business and express views that could be viewed as potentially threatening the status quo. Et cetera. In other words, it's fine if we're controlled as long as you're ok being controlled. But if you think, "I'd like things to be different," you're in danger, because the police and other government orgs know everything about you.
Don't ever speak up, don't ever take a position, don't ever have a thought.
But even that's not enough.
Stuff can happen that's not under your control. Suppose you're accused of a crime because you fit a profile or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or you're actively framed for a crime because you fit a profile close enough. Or suppose you witness a government official being corrupt or breaking the law. Or suppose you don't take a bribe and those offering the bribe take revenge. Or a psycho develops an infatuation with you and stalks you. Or you piss off the wrong person in an online game and the 2030s version of being "SWAT"ed is getting ratted out to the wrongthink police by some snot-nosed teenager.
The fact is that no one should hold this data about anyone. No one should have that kind of power. That's the bedrock of privacy.
But even that's not enough.
Stuff can happen that's not under your control. Suppose you're accused of a crime because you fit a profile or were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or you're actively framed for a crime because you fit a profile close enough. Or suppose you witness a government official being corrupt or breaking the law. Or suppose you don't take a bribe and those offering the bribe take revenge. Or a psycho develops an infatuation with you and stalks you. Or you piss off the wrong person in an online game and the 2030s version of being "SWAT"ed is getting ratted out to the wrongthink police by some snot-nosed teenager.
The fact is that no one should hold this data about anyone. No one should have that kind of power. That's the bedrock of privacy.
Not just privacy, but egalitarianism and justice. A society is not fair nor just when its members hold asymmetric power over others.
But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life
Wait for an advanced AI to get hold on that information. Not even for its own purposes, just one serving a rival power.
Wait for an advanced AI to get hold on that information. Not even for its own purposes, just one serving a rival power.
every once in a while I take a look at someone's phone who is not techically saavy.
Constant stream of beeps and buzzes, notifications, text messages and phone calls from unknown origin, phishing attempts and more. They are conditioned to enter their phone number or email for the most trivial of reasons, to use apps for everything, and to leave them on their phone forever, sapping their attention and privacy.
I think it's nice to see people pushing back and telling others about it.
I think you should help normalize the pushing back, not the giving in.
Constant stream of beeps and buzzes, notifications, text messages and phone calls from unknown origin, phishing attempts and more. They are conditioned to enter their phone number or email for the most trivial of reasons, to use apps for everything, and to leave them on their phone forever, sapping their attention and privacy.
I think it's nice to see people pushing back and telling others about it.
I think you should help normalize the pushing back, not the giving in.
For the same reason you vote, stop buying products, and read history books.
To shape the society you want to live in.
To shape the society you want to live in.
> But on a practical level, that's just wildly unlikely to ever happen or ever have an impact on a normal person's life, so why stress about it?
There are a number of ways to answer this.
This is the type of mentality that led to sudden surprise with "What? We have to take our shoes and belts off? Not just those guys but us?" It is an example of how ignoring the issues could end up having them affect you.
At the time of this writing, there are over 270 comments in this thread. I submit to you that it is very likely that multiple commenters have been directly impacted. I've known two people charged with bogus terrorism offenses. One of them stuck it out, had his day in court, and was acquitted - at the cost of over a million dollars in legal fees that his family had to pay. The other guy was not as wealthy and was presented with a fantastic deal by the prosecutors that he took the deal and pleaded guilty. He's out of prison now but with that record, his life is ruined. And he very likely was not guilty.
Another guy I know was messed up by the government on similar grounds - it destroyed his livelihood and cost him his marriage. He did, however, manage to (mostly successfully) sue the government for what they did to him, although one of the suits went to the Supreme Court and he lost the case there. He didn't have the means to mount these lawsuits - thank heavens for the ACLU who did it on his behalf!
I know a few people who were on no fly lists for extensive periods of time. They were never accused of anything. Just all of a sudden ... could not fly.
My gentle suggestion is that you expand your social circle to get to know how not rare these things are.
I also submit that more people are directly impacted by this than are directly impacted by gun violence. Would you agree we should chill out about guns?
If you're white, you are a lot less likely to be impacted by police brutality than an African American. Would you argue that white people shouldn't be bothered by the issue?
Having said all that, I do agree to the utility of what you are saying. I tend to be more concerned with corporate surveillance than government surveillance, and have gone extended periods with primarily cash purchases and limited CC usage. I didn't get a smartphone for a long time for the same reasons (and oh boy, when I did the privacy loss was very palpable). And yes, I can say right now that I have discovered that the utility of using those devices and paying with CC definitely exceeds the risks - for me. I have automated flows tied to both and they are very valuable.
Still, though, the comment you are responding to is not discussing anything extreme. I've not installed GrapheneOS but I have installed custom ROMs like LineageOS. It's not a big burden. An hour of effort perhaps? The main down side was things like Netflix not letting me download episodes and the inability to use Google Wallet (which I didn't want to use anyway!)
There are a number of ways to answer this.
This is the type of mentality that led to sudden surprise with "What? We have to take our shoes and belts off? Not just those guys but us?" It is an example of how ignoring the issues could end up having them affect you.
At the time of this writing, there are over 270 comments in this thread. I submit to you that it is very likely that multiple commenters have been directly impacted. I've known two people charged with bogus terrorism offenses. One of them stuck it out, had his day in court, and was acquitted - at the cost of over a million dollars in legal fees that his family had to pay. The other guy was not as wealthy and was presented with a fantastic deal by the prosecutors that he took the deal and pleaded guilty. He's out of prison now but with that record, his life is ruined. And he very likely was not guilty.
Another guy I know was messed up by the government on similar grounds - it destroyed his livelihood and cost him his marriage. He did, however, manage to (mostly successfully) sue the government for what they did to him, although one of the suits went to the Supreme Court and he lost the case there. He didn't have the means to mount these lawsuits - thank heavens for the ACLU who did it on his behalf!
I know a few people who were on no fly lists for extensive periods of time. They were never accused of anything. Just all of a sudden ... could not fly.
My gentle suggestion is that you expand your social circle to get to know how not rare these things are.
I also submit that more people are directly impacted by this than are directly impacted by gun violence. Would you agree we should chill out about guns?
If you're white, you are a lot less likely to be impacted by police brutality than an African American. Would you argue that white people shouldn't be bothered by the issue?
Having said all that, I do agree to the utility of what you are saying. I tend to be more concerned with corporate surveillance than government surveillance, and have gone extended periods with primarily cash purchases and limited CC usage. I didn't get a smartphone for a long time for the same reasons (and oh boy, when I did the privacy loss was very palpable). And yes, I can say right now that I have discovered that the utility of using those devices and paying with CC definitely exceeds the risks - for me. I have automated flows tied to both and they are very valuable.
Still, though, the comment you are responding to is not discussing anything extreme. I've not installed GrapheneOS but I have installed custom ROMs like LineageOS. It's not a big burden. An hour of effort perhaps? The main down side was things like Netflix not letting me download episodes and the inability to use Google Wallet (which I didn't want to use anyway!)
Encryption, etc. also merely pose inconveniences. At the end of the day, you don't need quantum computers to get access to whatever data you want. It's much easier to bribe+blackmail+threaten someone to get access to data. Or to buy zero days to access a victim's phone and go from there. Or to insert hardware backdoors and compromise a system at a fundamental level. Or install rootkits.
Those are techniques organized criminals might use. Nation states need not bother. They just do whatever they want, including inserting MITM boxes in telcos. It is safe to assume that no asymmetrically encrypted traffic in the past decade has not been stored and decoded. It's a reasonably safe assumption that all symmetrically encrypted traffic has been stored if not also outright decoded.
How much storage would this require? I'm not exactly soothed by the thought that the limiting factor here might be the cost of storage but...maybe it helps a little?
I bet you could get a lot of storage for 1 Bn USD. We don't know how much is in the black budget, but we do have a ten year old datapoint from the Snowden leak. There were many billions of USD dedicated to the dragnet. There is no reason to think it hasn't stayed the same or gotten larger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black...
Most content isn't all that high entropy I would imagine. So it would compress well.
I'd assume a lot of stuff isn't stored either.
I'd assume a lot of stuff isn't stored either.
This kind of defeatist, "They Live", everyone-is-lying all of the time mentality ignores the huge privacy gains the internet has achieved since basically just being an open message relay between hubs.
And on a purely practical level, law enforcement and prosecutors really struggle to make use of technical data to make cases, even in situations where they have warrants! Consumer encryption is so good that countries around the developed world are actively trying to pass laws to limit its power.
And on a purely practical level, law enforcement and prosecutors really struggle to make use of technical data to make cases, even in situations where they have warrants! Consumer encryption is so good that countries around the developed world are actively trying to pass laws to limit its power.
As Snowden said himself:
"Privacy is the right to a free mind," Snowden said. "Without privacy, you can't have anything for yourself. Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Mar 28, 2016
It is a huge pain to worry about your privacy all the time and I make many tradeoffs, but I fully support and am glad that others take it very seriously.
"Privacy is the right to a free mind," Snowden said. "Without privacy, you can't have anything for yourself. Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Mar 28, 2016
It is a huge pain to worry about your privacy all the time and I make many tradeoffs, but I fully support and am glad that others take it very seriously.
The NSA has no jurisdiction on American soil, so making cases is basically a moot point for PRISM anyway. PRISM will allow the government to extrajudicially kill you if you join a terrorist group (or a group the government considers one), and the fact that it exists and Russian officials have been caught using Windows XP is probably why Ukraine has outperformed expectations so much.
The PRISM systems have data on NSA workers’ exes, everyone who’s ever criticized the government, and every gang of shoplifters/carjackers/drug dealers, but most of that data is probably tossed in the garbage. If America ever turned fascist that could be a serious problem (and China’s probably using their equivalent to stop dissidents and criminals), and it’s a massive invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t effect 99.9% of people’s everyday lives.
The PRISM systems have data on NSA workers’ exes, everyone who’s ever criticized the government, and every gang of shoplifters/carjackers/drug dealers, but most of that data is probably tossed in the garbage. If America ever turned fascist that could be a serious problem (and China’s probably using their equivalent to stop dissidents and criminals), and it’s a massive invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t effect 99.9% of people’s everyday lives.
> probably tossed in the garbage.
I doubt that. The best we can hope for is that such information is compressed and moved to long-term storage or pointers to it are lost. More likely the only protection it really endures is that it is being obscured by the massive influx of new data; i.e. buried under an endlessly silting riverbed of new data.
> and China’s probably using their equivalent to stop dissidents and criminals
Check up on China[1]. They've massively stepped up the surveillance to the point where it's actively intervening on people's behavior to make them act "better" and discourage such bad things as....playing loud music on trains. They are barreling towards a dystopia where they can digitally un-person you for wrongdoing and wrongthink. Right now it's just the soft whips of not being to buy a train ticket or fly, but it will absolutely reach into every aspect citizen's lives, from charging different prices to determining where you can live and whether you pay fines or go to jail. China has a long tradition of un-personing politic dissidents, including jailing and killing them. The future looks horrifying.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#:~:text=T....
I doubt that. The best we can hope for is that such information is compressed and moved to long-term storage or pointers to it are lost. More likely the only protection it really endures is that it is being obscured by the massive influx of new data; i.e. buried under an endlessly silting riverbed of new data.
> and China’s probably using their equivalent to stop dissidents and criminals
Check up on China[1]. They've massively stepped up the surveillance to the point where it's actively intervening on people's behavior to make them act "better" and discourage such bad things as....playing loud music on trains. They are barreling towards a dystopia where they can digitally un-person you for wrongdoing and wrongthink. Right now it's just the soft whips of not being to buy a train ticket or fly, but it will absolutely reach into every aspect citizen's lives, from charging different prices to determining where you can live and whether you pay fines or go to jail. China has a long tradition of un-personing politic dissidents, including jailing and killing them. The future looks horrifying.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#:~:text=T....
The use of Chinese surveillance in Serbia is interesting as a place where they are exporting the technology to help a government that wants to keep control.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/belgrade-huawei-cameras
https://cepa.org/article/a-disturbing-marriage-serbia-and-ch...
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/belgrade-huawei-cameras
https://cepa.org/article/a-disturbing-marriage-serbia-and-ch...
Does the NSA have the storage capacity to hold onto everyone in the world’s emails, texts, and all other communications forever? At some point you’d need an entire government AWS, the costs of that alone seem like they’d be higher than their budget by an order of magnitude.
I agree about the social credit score, we don’t know the fields they use (unlike FICO) so it probably does include private communications.
I agree about the social credit score, we don’t know the fields they use (unlike FICO) so it probably does include private communications.
I don't know, but the Utah Data Center[1] has been estimated at 3 to 12 exabytes. I know for a fact that at least one $megacorp has worldwide storage larger than that. That seems large enough to comfortably store all human-generated text/audio communications. Who knows how much realtime camera footage they are sucking down; that seems like it would be the biggest amount of data.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
This is kinda where the "big data" conspiracies lose me. I maintain databases for a living, and the thing I constantly going around explaining to people is that giant piles of unstructured data does not actually correlate to intelligence.
Even if you theoretically were able to collect the voice recording of every human conversation happening between every human on Earth, actually parsing or using that information proactively is just not feasible. So I think people are being a bit unrealistic about the extent the agencies can even use the massive amounts of data they have.
Even if you theoretically were able to collect the voice recording of every human conversation happening between every human on Earth, actually parsing or using that information proactively is just not feasible. So I think people are being a bit unrealistic about the extent the agencies can even use the massive amounts of data they have.
Aren't intelligence agencies one of the biggest if not biggest AWS customers?
didn't you get the memo? in order to beat china, we must become more like them.
i'm going to refrain from making a whataboutism joke right now.
i'm going to refrain from making a whataboutism joke right now.
> 99.9% of people’s everyday lives
Although I know it's a made-up statistic, it's worth pointing out that even if that's true, that's a horrific number of people it does affect:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=.1%25+of+the+us+populat...
Although I know it's a made-up statistic, it's worth pointing out that even if that's true, that's a horrific number of people it does affect:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=.1%25+of+the+us+populat...
I get the impression that the intelligence communities (IC) have a lot of people who have a constant sense of it being their job to help avert national existential threats. I imagine they attract lots of smart and noble people, and that the nature of immersion in the work is going to affect a person's perspective.
People I've met who might've been involved in IC don't talk about it, at least not with me (and I assume it's improper to ask), but I did once meet someone peripheral to that, who vocalized one kind of thinking about it.
Years prior to the meeting, around the time of the Snowden thing, in a private research forum, I said something like: one of the IC orgs did important work, etc., but seemed to need guidance on Constitutional balance. It was a random comment, and I forgot about it.
Years later, I was meeting with someone from that forum, about a (non-IC) job, and their attention was divided with laptop while they talked with me, like they were also reviewing my resume or something. Suddenly, they were agitated, and seemed to be referencing -- not our conversation, nor my resume -- but my forum comment from years earlier, as they angrily started saying how people at such-and-such org "know the Constitution better than anyone", etc. Then angry impromptu speech about (public) information about threats, and (public) information about a claim of why such-and-such org had done certain things.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, and I also realized that I needed to get the interview-gone-sideways back on track, so the discussion recovered after that. But at the end of the interview, there was obvious (renewed) irritation in their voice and manner. (And that's not my worst interview ever. :)
I realized that the person's work had probably led them interact with IC orgs before, the person had been impressed by the orgs, was very concerned about threats, and was offended on behalf of the org by armchair critics like me.
I imagine that person is not the only one with strong feelings like that, but that people actually at the org, and who had similar feelings, wouldn't speak with an outsider about it.
People I've met who might've been involved in IC don't talk about it, at least not with me (and I assume it's improper to ask), but I did once meet someone peripheral to that, who vocalized one kind of thinking about it.
Years prior to the meeting, around the time of the Snowden thing, in a private research forum, I said something like: one of the IC orgs did important work, etc., but seemed to need guidance on Constitutional balance. It was a random comment, and I forgot about it.
Years later, I was meeting with someone from that forum, about a (non-IC) job, and their attention was divided with laptop while they talked with me, like they were also reviewing my resume or something. Suddenly, they were agitated, and seemed to be referencing -- not our conversation, nor my resume -- but my forum comment from years earlier, as they angrily started saying how people at such-and-such org "know the Constitution better than anyone", etc. Then angry impromptu speech about (public) information about threats, and (public) information about a claim of why such-and-such org had done certain things.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, and I also realized that I needed to get the interview-gone-sideways back on track, so the discussion recovered after that. But at the end of the interview, there was obvious (renewed) irritation in their voice and manner. (And that's not my worst interview ever. :)
I realized that the person's work had probably led them interact with IC orgs before, the person had been impressed by the orgs, was very concerned about threats, and was offended on behalf of the org by armchair critics like me.
I imagine that person is not the only one with strong feelings like that, but that people actually at the org, and who had similar feelings, wouldn't speak with an outsider about it.
Former spook here.
That's a pretty good description of most people IC affiliated. I'm not sure about your interviewer friend though, doesn't sound like someone I'd want to interact with.
That said, almost all of how these things work are out there in memoirs, biographies and non-fiction books. Robert Gates is a prolific writer and did a great job in his memoirs describing the IC. I mean yes the majority are purely discreet in their current or former capacity. It took me a long time before I would discuss my affiliations etc... and I generally don't discuss anything more than structural "how it works" kind of things that can be found in a lot of memoirs etc as described.
I'm always happy to discuss to a point but most of it would just be boring stuff.
That's a pretty good description of most people IC affiliated. I'm not sure about your interviewer friend though, doesn't sound like someone I'd want to interact with.
That said, almost all of how these things work are out there in memoirs, biographies and non-fiction books. Robert Gates is a prolific writer and did a great job in his memoirs describing the IC. I mean yes the majority are purely discreet in their current or former capacity. It took me a long time before I would discuss my affiliations etc... and I generally don't discuss anything more than structural "how it works" kind of things that can be found in a lot of memoirs etc as described.
I'm always happy to discuss to a point but most of it would just be boring stuff.
It may be unrelated to your work, but from your personal experience, how bad is the whole spying on civilians thing out of 1 to 10
Depends on who you ask of course.
The IC consists of:
-16 domestic partners (CIA, FBI, US Army, US Navy, NSA etc...),
-Five Eyes (Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, US),
-NATO,
-Whatever non-NATO intelligence service we are working with internationally as a coalition partner, or Major non-Nato Ally (MNNA) Singapore is a great example here.
So your question is better asked: Which civilians does the IC track, for what period of time, based on what requirement, using what tools?
"Dragnet" surveillance is kind of a misnomer. If data is created and stored somewhere, even on a private server in your basement, then the IC might have an interest in knowing what and where that data is. This exists in the form of the Warrants and National Security Letter process, or many other processes wherein private data becomes public via national security interest. However, until the IC actually begins investigating and (depending on jurisdiction) has an analyst look at that information for a specific intelligence requirement - it isn't technically "collected" - which is important legally but doesn't make a difference to most people.
The IC at it's most effective, using international treaties and a combination of Title 50 and Title 10 authorities, could find anyone, anywhere, anytime in the world and then could arrest/capture that person without firing a shot within lets say a week. That's the service guarantee that the IC provides to presidents and world leaders. However those ops cost MILLIONS to do and with hundreds of people. That kind of effort is for someone who is legitimately an imminent mortal threat to someone from the above coalition.
7.999M of the 8 Billion world citizens are so uninteresting in this context that they are not worth the time of a GS-13 analyst or case officer/agent making $120k/yr.
Any information/data you produce that is stored somewhere, or recoverable can be "collected" should you be involved in something that the Five Eyes determines is a threat.
So it's much like Capitalism: in the background and present always, able to do productive, positive things and operate effectively and efficiently BUT over the long run, generally is there to maintain power structures that exist, keeping adversarial organizations in a box on behalf of the ruling elite.
So for most citizens the "spying" is neutral and invisible and keeps the world running within the law/power structure as it is built - which, depending on which side you're on can be great or terrifying. As with anything that powerful though, has a tendency to crush and run over a lot of things unintentionally too.
So if your perspective is that the EXISTENCE of such an organization is itself a threat then you'd rank it 10/10
If you're wondering what the chances of being directly and individually oppressed by "spying" from the IC, I'd rank it 0/10 unless you're an international criminal of some sort.
The more interesting question to me is: What are lawmakers and elected officials asking the IC to do?
The IC consists of:
-16 domestic partners (CIA, FBI, US Army, US Navy, NSA etc...),
-Five Eyes (Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, US),
-NATO,
-Whatever non-NATO intelligence service we are working with internationally as a coalition partner, or Major non-Nato Ally (MNNA) Singapore is a great example here.
So your question is better asked: Which civilians does the IC track, for what period of time, based on what requirement, using what tools?
"Dragnet" surveillance is kind of a misnomer. If data is created and stored somewhere, even on a private server in your basement, then the IC might have an interest in knowing what and where that data is. This exists in the form of the Warrants and National Security Letter process, or many other processes wherein private data becomes public via national security interest. However, until the IC actually begins investigating and (depending on jurisdiction) has an analyst look at that information for a specific intelligence requirement - it isn't technically "collected" - which is important legally but doesn't make a difference to most people.
The IC at it's most effective, using international treaties and a combination of Title 50 and Title 10 authorities, could find anyone, anywhere, anytime in the world and then could arrest/capture that person without firing a shot within lets say a week. That's the service guarantee that the IC provides to presidents and world leaders. However those ops cost MILLIONS to do and with hundreds of people. That kind of effort is for someone who is legitimately an imminent mortal threat to someone from the above coalition.
7.999M of the 8 Billion world citizens are so uninteresting in this context that they are not worth the time of a GS-13 analyst or case officer/agent making $120k/yr.
Any information/data you produce that is stored somewhere, or recoverable can be "collected" should you be involved in something that the Five Eyes determines is a threat.
So it's much like Capitalism: in the background and present always, able to do productive, positive things and operate effectively and efficiently BUT over the long run, generally is there to maintain power structures that exist, keeping adversarial organizations in a box on behalf of the ruling elite.
So for most citizens the "spying" is neutral and invisible and keeps the world running within the law/power structure as it is built - which, depending on which side you're on can be great or terrifying. As with anything that powerful though, has a tendency to crush and run over a lot of things unintentionally too.
So if your perspective is that the EXISTENCE of such an organization is itself a threat then you'd rank it 10/10
If you're wondering what the chances of being directly and individually oppressed by "spying" from the IC, I'd rank it 0/10 unless you're an international criminal of some sort.
The more interesting question to me is: What are lawmakers and elected officials asking the IC to do?
That's the thing, they can't really defend themselves in the court of public opinion. And just take a look here at the comments from people who have absolutely nothing to do with the domain.
I know I would be frustrated.
> That's the thing, they can't really defend themselves in the court of public opinion.
If if they were able, how could they possibly win people over? They've violated our trust, privacy, and (arguably) our legal rights. Even if they're literally keeping the nation from being taken over by China or Russia, they're also the bad guys. I can accept that it's possible I'm better off with them than without them... but I hate them, because they abuse me.
If if they were able, how could they possibly win people over? They've violated our trust, privacy, and (arguably) our legal rights. Even if they're literally keeping the nation from being taken over by China or Russia, they're also the bad guys. I can accept that it's possible I'm better off with them than without them... but I hate them, because they abuse me.
Many Americans supported torture in Guantanamo bay in the name of safety, and other US atrocities.
The idea that they wouldn't win over a majority of Americans seems unlikely.
The idea that they wouldn't win over a majority of Americans seems unlikely.
Yes, but they were supporting torture of other people. That's a big distinction for most. However, you are probably right that they conceivably could manufacture consent in this case as well.
Many americans support the death penalty against their very own citizens too.
They can definitely manufacture consent, but for many that won't even be necessary at this point.
They can definitely manufacture consent, but for many that won't even be necessary at this point.
I haven't watched the news in a while, but my memory of it is that the intelligence agencies had a constant presence on them, with multiple former employees working for all the major cable news networks and the agencies themselves being asked to comment on basically any remotely related issue.
Maybe there's some string of successes they can't brag about, but they still regularly defend themselves in the court of public opinion and further often dominate the discussion.
Maybe there's some string of successes they can't brag about, but they still regularly defend themselves in the court of public opinion and further often dominate the discussion.
Not only a court of public opinion but in judicial court IC behavior like this is deemed unconstitutional once allowed to be discussed.
to assume that everything you write or say to or near an internet connected device is being recorded and linked to your real life identity.
to assume that everything companies tell you about security and encryption is an intentional (legally bound) or unintentional lie.
to realise that there are shadow laws that we are not aware of that govern these things.
to assume that everything companies tell you about security and encryption is an intentional (legally bound) or unintentional lie.
to realise that there are shadow laws that we are not aware of that govern these things.
To realize that the real state acts "deep state" like without requiring nefarious or shadowy behavior.
Simply make unelected people have lifelong careers within governmental organizations. Snowden talks about this in his book. Yeah a new ~puppet~ figure head gets elected every 4 years. But what about all the layers of folks who actually perform the "Government" actions? They are the same people for decades, they say yes or no to actions you can/cannot take, they influence in their every choice they true meaning of policies...
Simply make unelected people have lifelong careers within governmental organizations. Snowden talks about this in his book. Yeah a new ~puppet~ figure head gets elected every 4 years. But what about all the layers of folks who actually perform the "Government" actions? They are the same people for decades, they say yes or no to actions you can/cannot take, they influence in their every choice they true meaning of policies...
This is working as intended. At least in the United States.
Early in the history of the country, we experimented with evicting the entire government when party changed hands, all the way to individual post offices. It turned out to be ridiculously inefficient. It turns out institutional knowledge is extremely important, and institutions are generally terrible at writing everything down that the next person will need. Imagine trying to conduct a business with 95% turnover every 2 years.
As a result, we intentionally established standards for employment and safeguards against arbitrary firing of unelected bureaucratic officials. The elected officials have control over setting policy and, in the long-term, deciding the criteria by which the unelected officials retain their jobs.
None of this implies that the unelected officials are unaccountable. They are held accountable by our elected officials. But that process does require the elected officials to do their homework and, to some extent, understand the Chesterton's fences that exist in the system. A failure mode I observe is that we seem to keep trying to solve the problem by electing conspiracy nuts who are then basically ignored because they try to approach the problem of reining in unelected bureaucracy from the "Why don't you show us the secret UFO tapes?" direction instead of the "The president needs a full accounting of how many terabytes of data have been stored for terrorism fighting purposes" direction.
Early in the history of the country, we experimented with evicting the entire government when party changed hands, all the way to individual post offices. It turned out to be ridiculously inefficient. It turns out institutional knowledge is extremely important, and institutions are generally terrible at writing everything down that the next person will need. Imagine trying to conduct a business with 95% turnover every 2 years.
As a result, we intentionally established standards for employment and safeguards against arbitrary firing of unelected bureaucratic officials. The elected officials have control over setting policy and, in the long-term, deciding the criteria by which the unelected officials retain their jobs.
None of this implies that the unelected officials are unaccountable. They are held accountable by our elected officials. But that process does require the elected officials to do their homework and, to some extent, understand the Chesterton's fences that exist in the system. A failure mode I observe is that we seem to keep trying to solve the problem by electing conspiracy nuts who are then basically ignored because they try to approach the problem of reining in unelected bureaucracy from the "Why don't you show us the secret UFO tapes?" direction instead of the "The president needs a full accounting of how many terabytes of data have been stored for terrorism fighting purposes" direction.
> It turns out institutional knowledge is extremely important
It's a feature when positive, and a bug/liability when the institution is criminal/rogue . The NSA/CIA/FBI have (presumably knowingly) broke the law and using shady techniques. Which is of no surprise -- it's in their DNA to be secretive, shady, and create and exploit loopholes.
It's a feature when positive, and a bug/liability when the institution is criminal/rogue . The NSA/CIA/FBI have (presumably knowingly) broke the law and using shady techniques. Which is of no surprise -- it's in their DNA to be secretive, shady, and create and exploit loopholes.
The creation of the civil service in the US wasn’t about efficiency, but corruption.
James Garfield’s assassination was over his refusal to give a patronage job. That lead to a backlash against patronage in general.
Jobs as patronage continued at the lower level for a long time. In many states, the most powerful political official was the Postmaster General because he controlled the jobs.
At the federal level it still continues in various forms: appointments to military academies require congressional sponsorship, Supreme Court justices hand out clerkships based on ideology, etc.
When people talk about the civil services reforms being inspired by efficiency, they usually are talking about the British civil service (Northcoat-Trevelian report) or Chinese civil service.
But those are very different things than the American civil service.
America never really had a civilian civil service in the “Yes, Minister” sense of the phrase.
James Garfield’s assassination was over his refusal to give a patronage job. That lead to a backlash against patronage in general.
Jobs as patronage continued at the lower level for a long time. In many states, the most powerful political official was the Postmaster General because he controlled the jobs.
At the federal level it still continues in various forms: appointments to military academies require congressional sponsorship, Supreme Court justices hand out clerkships based on ideology, etc.
When people talk about the civil services reforms being inspired by efficiency, they usually are talking about the British civil service (Northcoat-Trevelian report) or Chinese civil service.
But those are very different things than the American civil service.
America never really had a civilian civil service in the “Yes, Minister” sense of the phrase.
UFOs are not conspiracy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-...
It was quite a hard path over decades to finally admit a reality that was obvious since decades. That realization has far more impact to mankind than petty politics.
It was quite a hard path over decades to finally admit a reality that was obvious since decades. That realization has far more impact to mankind than petty politics.
Noise like this is why the NSA doesn't get held accountable for spying on Americans.
Who has time to worry about privacy breaches and mass surveillance when aliens are real?
It would be harder to imagine an easier psyop to pull off. The only thing that strains credibility is that apparently it works.
Who has time to worry about privacy breaches and mass surveillance when aliens are real?
It would be harder to imagine an easier psyop to pull off. The only thing that strains credibility is that apparently it works.
You're the one mentioning aliens. The topic are UFOs and those are very much a reality. Governments spying on citizens is far from novelty.
On the other side, it is novelty to force western governments admitting that some flying object is surpassing our own technology capacities. That is a window opportunity into open science, into discovering what is powering them.
It is OK that your interests are more aligned into holding someone accountable, many other people on this globe are more interested in other topics. That's basically it.
On the other side, it is novelty to force western governments admitting that some flying object is surpassing our own technology capacities. That is a window opportunity into open science, into discovering what is powering them.
It is OK that your interests are more aligned into holding someone accountable, many other people on this globe are more interested in other topics. That's basically it.
> You're the one mentioning aliens
Yes, as the kind of foolishness the people who should be holding government accountable are distracted by instead of doing their jobs.
> It is OK that your interests are more aligned into holding someone accountable, many other people on this globe are more interested in other topics.
Indeed. It is a very useful lack of focus that maintains the status quo.
Yes, as the kind of foolishness the people who should be holding government accountable are distracted by instead of doing their jobs.
> It is OK that your interests are more aligned into holding someone accountable, many other people on this globe are more interested in other topics.
Indeed. It is a very useful lack of focus that maintains the status quo.
This is a satirical point of the British TV show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister. The high ranking civil servants, with nearly permanent positions, are in charge. The elected officials think they are in charge.
> The elected officials think they are in charge
Nah, the smart ones know they're not. They're just keeping up appearances.
Somewhat like those stories about being chased by wolves through the snow. Once in a while one who got ideas is tossed out as a distraction (Liz Truss, anyone?).
Nah, the smart ones know they're not. They're just keeping up appearances.
Somewhat like those stories about being chased by wolves through the snow. Once in a while one who got ideas is tossed out as a distraction (Liz Truss, anyone?).
The modern civil service is still better than the old "spoils system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
It was reformed for a reason! Putting politicians in charge of all hiring and firing turned out to be bad for everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
It was reformed for a reason! Putting politicians in charge of all hiring and firing turned out to be bad for everyone.
and having public sector unions is likewise bad for everyone
How's unions bad? Outside US-style Mafia unions of course. Nordic country unions are not at all the same and I see those as 100% win.
The leader of my citys police union is a convicted domestic abuser, was in a relationship with a student at the high school he was paid to protect, is a proud qanoner, and was fired by the city 3 times. Every time he was fired the union appealed and he kept his job. He has won multiple elections since the allegations came to light. The problem with public sector unions is that our last mayoral election was cop union sponsored candidate versus teacher union sponsored candidate. Literally both the candidates were lawyers for the unions directly before they started the campaign. If you think either group has a sweetheart contract you are shit out of luck, because the unions completely control politics here.
Unions work when the group they are bargaining with has competing interests. When the union negotiates against itself everyone else suffers.
Unions work when the group they are bargaining with has competing interests. When the union negotiates against itself everyone else suffers.
None of those serious issues are intrinsic problems with public sector unions, though. Most of them would exist even without the union playing a role, and a well structured union could also be preventing them.
Cops not being able to be fired is 100% because of the union. Every time they negotiate a new contract and the city tries to put in the ability to fire people the police refuse to arrest anyone.
Well, we don't need to get into details, but most pro-union folks I know don't consider police unions to be workers' unions. Either way, as I said, it's not an intrinsic property of unions. It's that way because police unions exist to hold the public hostage, not because unions are bad.
Holding the public hostage is an intrinsic property of public sector unions. That's the leverage they hold. If they don't like the deal being offered they can stop working and because their roles are so important that holds the public hostage.
That's how strikes work in general, whether the job is public or private. Transportation is mostly privatized, but if the workers strike we're all going to feel it to some degree. That's the point.
The difference with police unions is that they work in the inverse - we're in danger when they do work. Police hold us hostage by doing their jobs (badly) and offer mob-like protection.
The difference with police unions is that they work in the inverse - we're in danger when they do work. Police hold us hostage by doing their jobs (badly) and offer mob-like protection.
But what is the alternative?
I'll also just that I see the police union as a perfect example of what I called a US mafia style union. In Nordic countries you can't behave like this and get away with it in a union and there are pretty strict rules for what is and what isn't a legal strike.
I'll also just that I see the police union as a perfect example of what I called a US mafia style union. In Nordic countries you can't behave like this and get away with it in a union and there are pretty strict rules for what is and what isn't a legal strike.
That first one has really gone from tinfoil to norm. The Swedish government recently recommended officials not talk about anything secret while travelling in a Volvo.
That goes for any modern car after 2021. Most of them have built-in mics and are connected 24/7 even when the owner doesn't install a SIM card.
The rational is that you always get road assistance when needed. Never trust that conversations inside a modern car are private.
The rational is that you always get road assistance when needed. Never trust that conversations inside a modern car are private.
Have a link? Couldn't find anything easily.
The Swedish government didn't say that, some researcher did, and it was talked about in the public service news, afaik. The part of the government they asked on the topic said it was unsafe to have sensitive conversations in any brand of car.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/professorn-myndigheter-bo...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/professorn-myndigheter-bo...
That's just the advertising industry
> to assume that everything you write or say to or near an internet connected device is being recorded and linked to your real life identity.
I feel like if that were exploited at scale, we could see a huge number of criminal indictments etc., of the sort of behavior that's technically illegal but nobody enforces, but would suddenly be exposed through such an effort. Of course if they took it to court they'd have to discuss how they got the evidence.
But the fact that we're not seeing this makes me think it's not as bad as we think, that some amount of discretion is used, or that there is just so much data that nobody is acting on most of it.
I frankly think the more scary abuses of the post 9/11 era are things like Guantanamo. The idea that they can round up people and hold them indefinitely, with no or little due process. If someone does warrantless surveillance and brings a case against you based on that information, the expectation is you can challenge it. If they falsely claim you did 9/11, then... Less so.
I feel like if that were exploited at scale, we could see a huge number of criminal indictments etc., of the sort of behavior that's technically illegal but nobody enforces, but would suddenly be exposed through such an effort. Of course if they took it to court they'd have to discuss how they got the evidence.
But the fact that we're not seeing this makes me think it's not as bad as we think, that some amount of discretion is used, or that there is just so much data that nobody is acting on most of it.
I frankly think the more scary abuses of the post 9/11 era are things like Guantanamo. The idea that they can round up people and hold them indefinitely, with no or little due process. If someone does warrantless surveillance and brings a case against you based on that information, the expectation is you can challenge it. If they falsely claim you did 9/11, then... Less so.
>I feel like if that were exploited at scale, we could see a huge number of criminal indictments etc.,
This might or might not be true, but let's say it is. But what then in 10 years when something you do or are becomes the next Red Scare?
This might or might not be true, but let's say it is. But what then in 10 years when something you do or are becomes the next Red Scare?
Yeah. I would say the post 9/11 attitude towards Muslims was the next red scare. And that was the trigger for a lot of this bullshit. So we as a society must remain vigilant of efforts to reduce civil rights.
I personally think the resurgence in the last few years of "tough on crime" political rhetoric is another similar wave. The people who want to lock up the homeless or whatever. People demanding more incarceration of petty criminals. Judges are frequently described as weak if they let someone go due to insufficient evidence. If we start thinking due process is for chumps and that we need to lock everybody up no questions asked, I think mass surveillance can be a terrible input to that system.
I personally think the resurgence in the last few years of "tough on crime" political rhetoric is another similar wave. The people who want to lock up the homeless or whatever. People demanding more incarceration of petty criminals. Judges are frequently described as weak if they let someone go due to insufficient evidence. If we start thinking due process is for chumps and that we need to lock everybody up no questions asked, I think mass surveillance can be a terrible input to that system.
Personally, I have learnt I do not have a moral compass strong enough to outweigh the consequences that come with being a whistleblower. I'm very grateful such people exist, though.
What are the consequences? Legal protection from retaliation?
https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs
https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs
Vindman is a perfect recent example of how easily this protections are skirted. He was a “key witness” in Trump’s first impeachment.
His career was largely derailed, and his post-retirement second career options are most likely severely limited.
To be specific (and iirc):
- He was not kicked out of the military. He retired due to “bullying” and a big congressional kerfuffle that was about to happen because of his delayed promotion to full bird.
- Iirc, he was told that he could remain in his career, but he would have to move from a hot shot track he was in to something like being commandant of a nowhere base in Alaska so he could lay low. Note that moves like this happen when being promoted to full bird, but I got the sense that this was not his trajectory pre-testimony.
- His post-retirement options probably exclude working at any organization that is pro-Trump and most that are pro-Republican, which is a not small number of DoD contractors (common landing spot for retired military).
- Note that his lawsuits were dismissed. This type of discrimination is fairly easy to do in such a way that makes it difficult to sue successfully, usually due to something like “documented personal opinion or discretion” that the discriminator had. Note that I have personally seen this knowingly done several times —- it was super creepy to see in action.
Wikipedia does a decent job of summarizing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman
Some of his interviews were enlightening if you search for the links.
His career was largely derailed, and his post-retirement second career options are most likely severely limited.
To be specific (and iirc):
- He was not kicked out of the military. He retired due to “bullying” and a big congressional kerfuffle that was about to happen because of his delayed promotion to full bird.
- Iirc, he was told that he could remain in his career, but he would have to move from a hot shot track he was in to something like being commandant of a nowhere base in Alaska so he could lay low. Note that moves like this happen when being promoted to full bird, but I got the sense that this was not his trajectory pre-testimony.
- His post-retirement options probably exclude working at any organization that is pro-Trump and most that are pro-Republican, which is a not small number of DoD contractors (common landing spot for retired military).
- Note that his lawsuits were dismissed. This type of discrimination is fairly easy to do in such a way that makes it difficult to sue successfully, usually due to something like “documented personal opinion or discretion” that the discriminator had. Note that I have personally seen this knowingly done several times —- it was super creepy to see in action.
Wikipedia does a decent job of summarizing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman
Some of his interviews were enlightening if you search for the links.
How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation? Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet? He's also benefited- I was surprised and delighted to see him on an episode of Curb your Enthusiasm
We were talking about protections from prosecution which Snowden absolutely had.
We were talking about protections from prosecution which Snowden absolutely had.
> How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation?
Realistically, there is nothing rule-based that I can think of in the US that would protect someone like Vindman. He probably knew that.
The protection has to be from a system of shared beliefs about what is ethical and appropriate.
Trump’s whole campaign and strategy (love it or hate it) was to completely dumpster that idea.
There could be an interesting discussion about the merits and demerits of disrupting the existing system of shared beliefs that was in place when Trump was elected (I would actually welcome that), but Trump mostly (if not entirely) just used the opportunity to feed his narcissism.
> Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet?
Totally uncalled for.
A simple solution would be things like:
- Don’t block his career for petty politics. The problem is that Trump specifically was all about retaliation and petty politics. I think most of the folks around him gave guidance not to do these sorts of petty things, but that was his style.
- Own your mistakes. Again, I don’t think this was Trump’s strong suit.
- Factor in the bigger picture when making decisions. Vindman, if my read on his career is correct, is precisely the type of person we need more of in the upper officer ranks. Tanking his career was bad for Vindman, but worse for the country, imho. That’s just short-sightedness.
Realistically, there is nothing rule-based that I can think of in the US that would protect someone like Vindman. He probably knew that.
The protection has to be from a system of shared beliefs about what is ethical and appropriate.
Trump’s whole campaign and strategy (love it or hate it) was to completely dumpster that idea.
There could be an interesting discussion about the merits and demerits of disrupting the existing system of shared beliefs that was in place when Trump was elected (I would actually welcome that), but Trump mostly (if not entirely) just used the opportunity to feed his narcissism.
> Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet?
Totally uncalled for.
A simple solution would be things like:
- Don’t block his career for petty politics. The problem is that Trump specifically was all about retaliation and petty politics. I think most of the folks around him gave guidance not to do these sorts of petty things, but that was his style.
- Own your mistakes. Again, I don’t think this was Trump’s strong suit.
- Factor in the bigger picture when making decisions. Vindman, if my read on his career is correct, is precisely the type of person we need more of in the upper officer ranks. Tanking his career was bad for Vindman, but worse for the country, imho. That’s just short-sightedness.
That is only for "legal" whistleblowers though. Snowden was not.
That was his choice. He could have chosen the legal avenue and would have been afforded whistleblower protections. Fleeing the country with classified material doesn't afford you protection.
Copying from another comment, to prove how stupid is to expect that a secret service will pet you on the head for talking out against them:
"Thomas Drake did everything you say is the right, he paid the price:
| The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the
| very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did.
| Drake was a much higher-ranking NSA official than
| Snowden, and he obeyed US whistleblower laws, raising
| his concerns through official channels. And he got
| crushed.
| Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI
| agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged
| with crimes that could have sent him to prison for
| the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially
| and professionally. The only job he could find
| afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban
| Washington, where he remains today. Adding insult to
| injury, his warnings about the dangers of the NSA’s
| surveillance programme were largely ignored.
TIL, very interesting.
I'll have to read more but it seems that he didn't use proper channels he went to a reporter (with only unclass material, he claims). They raided him probably expecting classified material to be involved. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of this instance.
I'll have to read more but it seems that he didn't use proper channels he went to a reporter (with only unclass material, he claims). They raided him probably expecting classified material to be involved. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of this instance.
He didn't have whistleblower status, so not sure why you think there wouldn't be consequences.
2OEH8eoCRo0(2)
Who is 'we' in this? If 'we' is U.S. citizen I think it's something along the lines of the typical trope 'if I don't have anything to hide then I don't have anything to worry about' with the unspoken piece of the formula being '...so I should censor myself to ensure...' etc.
"We need to ensure the TLA is run by people sharing our values, so they will only spy, frame and kill our enemies in the culture war."
(Too dark?)
(Too dark?)
Only criminals have something to hide, right?
I love that saying. But if it would be true, then why do people lock their bathroom doors?
I love that saying. But if it would be true, then why do people lock their bathroom doors?
This is completely missing the point of why one needs privacy. Lack of it harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
It was sarcasm, friend. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.
I'm on the side of privacy, decentralization and offline technology that is free from modern shackles.
I'm on the side of privacy, decentralization and offline technology that is free from modern shackles.
Well, we've learned that the people in power are immune to criticism and that the democratic process has no ability to constrain them whatsoever.
People blew the whistle on a sitting President just a few years ago and they're practically heroes today (Alexander Vindman, Bill Taylor, etc.).
it’s a damn shame snowden and assange are not consistently cited for the revealing the insane violence against us all.
we are 20 years in the dark. we are 20 fucking years, in the dark.
we shine the light on the present and they hang us by the balls.
we are 20 years in the dark. we are 20 fucking years, in the dark.
we shine the light on the present and they hang us by the balls.
That nationalism beats knowledge and people really cannot cope with ideas that don't fit into tweets. Sorry this is so "edgy" but I cannot find a better way to sum it up. This whole thing is just like the end of the Roman Republic only with less class.
The elites are much better at managing public opinion in the modern West than they ever were in the Roman Republic.
We would never see something even remotely similar to the Gracchi in the US today.
We would never see something even remotely similar to the Gracchi in the US today.
That mainstream media outlets filled with "former" intelligence agents completely control american discourse.
This times a big number.
And because of the increased saturation of the MSM with "former" three letter agency staff, we also see today's liberals as staunch defenders of the same agencies they used to harshly question. That's a huge shift and I think it's attributable mostly to needing to do damage control post-Snowden.
And because of the increased saturation of the MSM with "former" three letter agency staff, we also see today's liberals as staunch defenders of the same agencies they used to harshly question. That's a huge shift and I think it's attributable mostly to needing to do damage control post-Snowden.
Even if there was a "cabal" of string pullers, don't you think there are more direct reasons in that case?
Such secret networks, to the extent they exist, generally value stability. Chaos is dangerous to the powers that be.
If these groups felt threatened by leftists and liberals rocking the boat, don't you make the mistake of what they feel threatened of.
It's not primarily the ideology, it's the rocking of the boat.
If the right is now rocking the status quo, don't you think that is also threatening?
Somewhere mixed in here are also (probably a huge majority) of bureaucrats, for better or worse, just doing their jobs.
Such secret networks, to the extent they exist, generally value stability. Chaos is dangerous to the powers that be.
If these groups felt threatened by leftists and liberals rocking the boat, don't you make the mistake of what they feel threatened of.
It's not primarily the ideology, it's the rocking of the boat.
If the right is now rocking the status quo, don't you think that is also threatening?
Somewhere mixed in here are also (probably a huge majority) of bureaucrats, for better or worse, just doing their jobs.
I think it is more attributable to reformed alliances in the wake of Trump and conservative populism.
Neocon figures realized they couldn’t rely on popular Republican support for intervention, so they started making alliances with liberals who had shown willingness to be swayed.
Neocon figures realized they couldn’t rely on popular Republican support for intervention, so they started making alliances with liberals who had shown willingness to be swayed.
Learned that we are more or less naked when surfing the web, which is beyond any individual's effort unless one literally lives in a cave.
That anything that can be done will be done to push the narrative that will enrich the few.
I hate when journalists steal headlines and don't add any meaning/life to a story. The actual piece is from Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/07/edward-snowd...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/07/edward-snowd...
I'm pretty sure it was 10 years since Snowden's reveal both for El Reg and for the Guardian. El Reg did not steal the time period from the Guardian.
There have been no reforms. Business as usual.
Nothing -or at least that's what it feels like.
Certainly not enough given the level of Snowden's sacrifice.
The article mentions revelations of Verizon participating in illegal spying. It was also revealed ATT and others participated. This prompted congress to pass a retroactive law making the illegal telecom spying, during the Bush Jr. administration, legal. I guess the US hypocrisy is more plain now? The US is a nation of (retroactive) laws that protect powerful men.
There were a few technical fixes. The NSA presentation slide that stated, OpenVPN and SSL were "not a problem" led to using stronger ciphers by default.
Google reportedly encrypts its inter-DC links since the revelations that the US was tapping and spying on the communications.
You are less likely to be treated as a tinfoil hat nutter if you talk about US spying on its own citizens and the rest of the world.
The rest of the world's population stated the US as the greatest threat to freedom in the world today in polls across allied nations, so some who had prior, are no longer believing US propaganda. Although recent US illegal wars of aggression and revelations of torture and other war crimes, probably played a large part here too.
The powerful have tried harder to ensure secrecy, and control over documentation of their misdeeds. It is highly likely that the powerful also are more careful now to ensure there is no record of their crimes.
But, what should have happened was the displacing of all the federal prisoners convicted of non-violent drug offences to make room for all surviving politicians and surviving members of the NSA, CIA, FBI, federal courts, etc., who reasonably could be expected to have known of illegal behavior of those agencies, and who did not do everything within their abilities (including whistle blowing) to end it. There would have been a lot of powerful members of the corporate party's far-right wing (Republicans) and the corporate party's right wing (Democrats) being locked up, so of course, go after the messenger, sweep what you can under the rug, and as a last resort, pass retroactive laws to make the illegal, legal.
The article mentions revelations of Verizon participating in illegal spying. It was also revealed ATT and others participated. This prompted congress to pass a retroactive law making the illegal telecom spying, during the Bush Jr. administration, legal. I guess the US hypocrisy is more plain now? The US is a nation of (retroactive) laws that protect powerful men.
There were a few technical fixes. The NSA presentation slide that stated, OpenVPN and SSL were "not a problem" led to using stronger ciphers by default.
Google reportedly encrypts its inter-DC links since the revelations that the US was tapping and spying on the communications.
You are less likely to be treated as a tinfoil hat nutter if you talk about US spying on its own citizens and the rest of the world.
The rest of the world's population stated the US as the greatest threat to freedom in the world today in polls across allied nations, so some who had prior, are no longer believing US propaganda. Although recent US illegal wars of aggression and revelations of torture and other war crimes, probably played a large part here too.
The powerful have tried harder to ensure secrecy, and control over documentation of their misdeeds. It is highly likely that the powerful also are more careful now to ensure there is no record of their crimes.
But, what should have happened was the displacing of all the federal prisoners convicted of non-violent drug offences to make room for all surviving politicians and surviving members of the NSA, CIA, FBI, federal courts, etc., who reasonably could be expected to have known of illegal behavior of those agencies, and who did not do everything within their abilities (including whistle blowing) to end it. There would have been a lot of powerful members of the corporate party's far-right wing (Republicans) and the corporate party's right wing (Democrats) being locked up, so of course, go after the messenger, sweep what you can under the rug, and as a last resort, pass retroactive laws to make the illegal, legal.
what? we learned that digital privacy does not exist. anyone that can make a dollar for information that they can glean from their users via any mechanism they offer will sell that data. we've learned that there are more people doing that very thing than would seem obvious at first. we've also learned that if the product/service you are using is free means you are the product is no longer true as things like smart TVs and other items that you pay for are also data hoarders to the point they make more money of the analytics sales than they do the actual product they are known to sell. we've learned that the rules for thee but not for me is rule of the land for gov't TLAs.
so, it seems to me that we've learned a lot, but the "nothing" you claim would be more appropriately describing the response from what was learned.
so, it seems to me that we've learned a lot, but the "nothing" you claim would be more appropriately describing the response from what was learned.
If we as a society have changed nothing in response to new knowledge, have we really learned anything?
I'd agree with the parent that no, we haven't.
I'd agree with the parent that no, we haven't.
If you want to be flippant about it, fine. Just because you know that other planets exist around stars outside of our solar system but you can't visit them, did we actually learn anything? Having knowledge of something does not immediately mean you are able to take action with that knowledge. Sure, the typical HN reader might have been able to take action with things like installing various extensions in their browsers, running PiHoles on their private networks, using VPNs when on public networks, etc, but we've also learned that these are not enough and avoiding the tracking that we've learned about is nigh impossible. We now know things about persistent tracking that was not shared by Snowden, but we only started looking because of the revelations from Snowden got the wheels turning.
There is a humongous gap between stars we can't reach and not putting every little detail of your life on the internet for all to see. Keeping information to yourself isn't something locked away behind extensive technical prowess.
Heck, if we are playing this game: most still make fun of their 'weird tech relative/friend' who can do this rather than ask them to help for what they will probably do for free. The people have spoken and continue to speak very clearly.
Heck, if we are playing this game: most still make fun of their 'weird tech relative/friend' who can do this rather than ask them to help for what they will probably do for free. The people have spoken and continue to speak very clearly.
Sure, not publicly listing every meal you have followed by every bowel movement would be a good start that is never going to happen because the world needs to know this information.
However, that's not the only data that is gathered and sold. The information that is gathered passively from extensive efforts to track individuals across the internet is the elephant in the room that you seemingly want to ignore. These are direct attempts by companies to subvert individuals that might actually NOT be posting every little thing they do on social platforms. Things like tracking people as they move about brick & mortar stores or other types of beacons for whatever purposes they are being used for are examples. SmartTVs gather metrics, grocery stores gather metrics, and the million other "little" things that when gathered together all paint a very very detailed picture about someone without them necessarily knowing about.
so you're "don't be so public on the internet" is not such a simple little thing
However, that's not the only data that is gathered and sold. The information that is gathered passively from extensive efforts to track individuals across the internet is the elephant in the room that you seemingly want to ignore. These are direct attempts by companies to subvert individuals that might actually NOT be posting every little thing they do on social platforms. Things like tracking people as they move about brick & mortar stores or other types of beacons for whatever purposes they are being used for are examples. SmartTVs gather metrics, grocery stores gather metrics, and the million other "little" things that when gathered together all paint a very very detailed picture about someone without them necessarily knowing about.
so you're "don't be so public on the internet" is not such a simple little thing
We learned that digital privacy doesnt exist and nobody cares about that.
By nobody I meant the amount of people who care is rounding error.
By nobody I meant the amount of people who care is rounding error.
But isn't that pretty telling information to have learned? As evangelists against tracking, we hope that by spreading the gospel of evil tracking uses to those unaware might actually convert them into the flock and they would change their habits. instead, we learned we are outcasts in society, and that if we keep singing the hymns in places people are not interested in hearing them, that we will become (have become) a mocked group of society that becomes meme-worthy and never taken seriously. so, the Prophecies of Idiocracy are doomed to come true.
What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism
It's akin to how we seem to be getting more and more info about UFOs lately. When it's finally confirmed, we can't just act like we knew nothing about UFOs existing, we had a clue for a long while - just no official confirmations.
It's akin to how we seem to be getting more and more info about UFOs lately. When it's finally confirmed, we can't just act like we knew nothing about UFOs existing, we had a clue for a long while - just no official confirmations.
> What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism
right, and for the 99.999% of the population that is NOT, we learned all about it. what a weird caveat you've added that assumes "we" are only HN readers that could have possibly have learned anything.
right, and for the 99.999% of the population that is NOT, we learned all about it. what a weird caveat you've added that assumes "we" are only HN readers that could have possibly have learned anything.
It was widely reported as well (I remember a video of some govt agency installing a device in an AT&T datacenter siphoning a huge amount of internet traffic, it should have incited outrage and gone viral), just not much interest without a smoking gun. The laypeople you speak of weren't interested, they were blissfully ignorant. I honestly still believe with a smoking gun and 10 years later many people just don't have much interest, they tend to abide by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" views of privacy (in US at least)
I think it is more of a Douglas Adams type of SEP. These are things that are too complex for the average person to understand, and they might actually know deep down that if they were to allow themselves to understand it that they might actually have to do something about it which would disrupt their lifestyles. So their brains make the situation out as Someone Else's Problem which allows them to stick their head back into the sand.
It's much more nuanced than "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", as it's just wrong. Everyone does something that is against regulations every day. It's just a matter of time before that is truly enforced using this "nothing to hide" data, and then people will be "I guess I did need to hide that".
It's much more nuanced than "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", as it's just wrong. Everyone does something that is against regulations every day. It's just a matter of time before that is truly enforced using this "nothing to hide" data, and then people will be "I guess I did need to hide that".
I tend to think people do know or have some clues into these type of things, they just think their probability assigned to "just a matter of time before that is truly enforced" is so low, they don't want to waste energy on it. They also view the consequences as low, hence the erroneous "nothing to fear" part.
A current thought experiment on this is, if Trump won 2024, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if he went off the rails and tried to punish anyone that spoke poorly of him. Citizens included. Meanwhile, half the country has been posting openly on social media about hating the guy for the past 8 years. Some of us, thinking we did so anonymously behind a @non account. We collectively just don't fathom the risk of that type of institutional upheaval. But, it's bound to happen at some point, in some way.
An example with less consequences (perhaps?), everyone knows that something is listening to them even when they don't know what. We all have stories of something unusual coming up in conversation, then immediately you notice you're being targeted for those ads. Even though you never search for it, etc. it just came up at the watercooler in conversation with Bob in accounting or something. Everyone knows it's happenings, for years now, but nobody is really too concerned or asking for real answers about how this occurs. It might be a complex of an answer for the average joe, but he's not even asking the question because the consequences are perceived to be low.
A current thought experiment on this is, if Trump won 2024, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if he went off the rails and tried to punish anyone that spoke poorly of him. Citizens included. Meanwhile, half the country has been posting openly on social media about hating the guy for the past 8 years. Some of us, thinking we did so anonymously behind a @non account. We collectively just don't fathom the risk of that type of institutional upheaval. But, it's bound to happen at some point, in some way.
An example with less consequences (perhaps?), everyone knows that something is listening to them even when they don't know what. We all have stories of something unusual coming up in conversation, then immediately you notice you're being targeted for those ads. Even though you never search for it, etc. it just came up at the watercooler in conversation with Bob in accounting or something. Everyone knows it's happenings, for years now, but nobody is really too concerned or asking for real answers about how this occurs. It might be a complex of an answer for the average joe, but he's not even asking the question because the consequences are perceived to be low.
that Americans are impotent, unwilling, incapable - take your pick - to effect any meaningful changes within their system. despite loudly proclaiming the virtues of liberal democracy and even being willing to violently force it onto others.
Related recent discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
Nothing. As nothing changed, nobody learned anything.
We've learned that we learn virtually nothing if the intelligence community says we don't.
What have we learned?
* That the U.S. Government is above the law and no one will ever be held to account.
* Privacy in the U.S. for citizens is dead, but alive and well for corporations and government.
* That 50% of Americans would glady kill the other 50% so that they can be little racist Nazi shitheads.
* That things will get much worse before they get better.
* That the U.S. Government is above the law and no one will ever be held to account.
* Privacy in the U.S. for citizens is dead, but alive and well for corporations and government.
* That 50% of Americans would glady kill the other 50% so that they can be little racist Nazi shitheads.
* That things will get much worse before they get better.
dralley(1)
rib3ye(12)
American patriots are loyal to Russia. Plot twist!
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/snowden_report_...
> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
> “The vast majority of documents Snowden removed were unrelated to electronic surveillance or any issues associated with privacy and civil liberties.” (p. 22)
> “Since Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services.”
> “Some of the personal network drives Snowden searched belonged to individuals involved in the hiring decision for a job for which Snowden had applied. On these individuals’ network drives, Snowden searched for human resources files and files related to the promotion and hiring decisions.”
> “The Committee further found no evidence that Snowden attempted to communicate concerns about the legality or morality of intelligence activities to any officials, senior or otherwise, during his time at either CIA or NSA.”
> “The vast majority of documents Snowden removed were unrelated to electronic surveillance or any issues associated with privacy and civil liberties.” (p. 22)
> “Since Snowden’s arrival in Moscow, he has had, and continues to have, contact with Russian intelligence services.”
> “Some of the personal network drives Snowden searched belonged to individuals involved in the hiring decision for a job for which Snowden had applied. On these individuals’ network drives, Snowden searched for human resources files and files related to the promotion and hiring decisions.”
The House Intelligence Committee has every reason to discredit Snowden. Why should we believe this?
Even if it were true, one should see it as an attempt to distract from the leaked documents themselves.
Which claims in the document are inaccurate?
The House Intel Committee is a bipartisan group of elected officials in a separate branch of government (legislative branch) from the intelligence agencies (executive branch).
Are any of the claims inaccurate?
Are any of the claims inaccurate?
Honest question, who would you believe, that has access to these records?
The real lesson of Snowden's revelations is that almost nobody actually cares that they're being spied on. (I certainly don't.)
Edit: OK, here's some actual data on this and a little less hyperbole. "Almost nobody" is wrong. But it's not obvious that most Americans care.
* On most questions about surveillance Americans are pretty evenly divided (it's about 50/50 for/against government surveillance and wiretapping)
* On the question of monitoring non-citizens Americans are broadly supportive (80% in favor)
* When you ask people about their own data they actually turn out to be less concerned than if you ask them about surveillance in the abstract (a majority are "unconcerned" about surveillance in that context)
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/06/04/how-ameri...
Edit: OK, here's some actual data on this and a little less hyperbole. "Almost nobody" is wrong. But it's not obvious that most Americans care.
* On most questions about surveillance Americans are pretty evenly divided (it's about 50/50 for/against government surveillance and wiretapping)
* On the question of monitoring non-citizens Americans are broadly supportive (80% in favor)
* When you ask people about their own data they actually turn out to be less concerned than if you ask them about surveillance in the abstract (a majority are "unconcerned" about surveillance in that context)
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/06/04/how-ameri...
When I first heard his story I expected him to be hailed as a hero, and thought we might even have a holiday to celebrate him for risking his life, freedom, and career to inform us that our government is doing something deeply unethical in secret with our own money, that violates our basic freedoms. Thank you Snowden.