Woz Compares the Cloud and PRISM To Communist Russia

FIrst Post Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 09:42 · Score: 5, Funny

In Communist Ammerica the Russians own you!

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Mike+Frett · 2013-06-13 10:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either. But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source. It's actually not a bad thing if you like the Star Trek way of working not for money, but to better Humanity. It goes back to our Cave Man roots in a way.
But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is. But like I said, it's never been implemented in it's true form and the Rich and Poor are too dug in to ever enact it. It's unfortunate because I wouldn't mind being truly equal and working to better ourselves instead of money.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Tokolosh · 2013-06-13 10:34 · Score: 2

There is a difference between sharing and collaborating voluntarily, and "sharing" while looking into the barrel of a gun. In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by wierd_w · 2013-06-13 11:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only way this would ever work:
Non human servators.
As long as it is *required* for humans to work, and not optional, the "work for betterment of humanity" angle can never work.
Basically, we need soul-less, emotionless, and thankless machines to do those jobs that nobody wants to do.
Humans have to become "irrevelavent" to the maintenance and operation of the gears and cogs of mass production and infrastructure as anything other than the source of innovation. (That is to say, a mega plague could sweep the planet and extinct all human life, and the machines would continue on, repairing empty houses, growing food that won't be eaten, and maintaining themselves, each other, and all the physical social infrastructure. Human involvement is not necessary for "the system" to function.)
Until we have machines that fill this role, the proposal will never work, as cited.
When such machines DO become available, then there would no longer be a need for money, or wealth.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by ebno-10db · 2013-06-13 11:19 · Score: 2

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either.
Marxism is not the only form of communism, and Marx was an authoritarian. It's well explained here.
In the 19th century there was a big rivalry between the Marxist communists and the anarchist communists, as exemplified by Bakunin. He and other anarchists hated Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat", which Marx never precisely defined, but in which the word "dictatorship" was accurately used. As Bakunin said:

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.
I'm no political extremist, but I've always thought that if I were to become one I'd be an anarchist. Essentially they believe that all government authority is corrupt.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by femtobyte · 2013-06-13 11:19 · Score: 2

Back to communism and money: the main problem here is how do you decide who does what job, and how do you get people to actually do jobs? Everyone wants the good jobs, and no one wants the shit jobs. Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets? Lots and lots of people would prefer not to work at all if they don't have to. How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?
This is a problem that faces all economic systems, and has yet to be perfectly dealt with in any large-scale society. Note, however, that capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status (in a self-reinforcing cycle of poor people being stuck with shitty jobs that leave them poor). Countries adopting a more social-democratic approach alleviate some of these problems by assuring that even those in shitty jobs can receive a more humane overall standard of living --- access to good healthcare; livable wages; enforcement of workplace health and safety regulation; similar educational opportunities for their children; etc.
Making the "worst" jobs pay the most (until they are seen as "equally good" to any other career path) is one method of approach; another is to try and spread "undesirable" jobs between everyone (e.g. all company employees from top to bottom will take a toilet scrubbing duty rotation for 15 minutes a week). Various proposed alternatives to capitalism all have their own pitfalls and details to work out, but many (at least employed to limited extents) have a significantly better track record than capitalism for creating humane and just societies (that don't drop massive burdens of suffering on an economically disenfranchised lower class).
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-06-13 11:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

> How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?
Robots. I am not joking. When we get to the point where all the crappy jobs can be done by robots we are going to have mass unemployment because lots of people will choose to do nothing instead of something higher up the food chain.
And I don't think that is such a bad thing. A life spent doing nothing is really no less meaningful than a life spent working a shit job, but it is a much less shitty life. As a society we should embrace the idea of getting to the point where everybody can afford to live idle lives, right now only the rich can do that.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by ebno-10db · 2013-06-13 11:23 · Score: 2

while looking into the barrel of a gun
A libertarian term of art, more commonly phrased as "men with guns".

In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.
By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by femtobyte · 2013-06-13 11:41 · Score: 2

Very small companies often approach rather "communist" ideals: everyone really is "in it together," with equal input and common goals (not based on "maximize shareholder profit at all costs") and no 400:1 pay disparities between management and labor. Interestingly, such "small business" ideals are often held up by staunch defenders of capitalism (while arguing on behalf of megacorporations that function nothing like the mom-and-pop shop or garage startup) --- the only way to make capitalism look good is to cherry-pick the most communist parts (while ignoring the conditions under which the majority work).
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by cfsops · 2013-06-13 12:00 · Score: 2

A catch-22: you won't get an end to capitalist but by means of force, but that force will become a dictatorship itselt that in no way will surrender its position.
The hand of Vengeance found the Bed
To which the Purple Tyrant fled.
The iron hand crush'd the Tyrants head
And became the Tyrant in his stead.

[Blake]
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by tristes_tigres · 2013-06-13 12:12 · Score: 2

> Well, if you could remove greed, lust, hate, and evil from human nature then this would work..
Actually, for the communism to work it is enough to remove the scarcity. That's why maintaining scarcity and inequality is a major preoccupation of the 1%
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Grishnakh · 2013-06-13 12:53 · Score: 2

It's not a horrible idea: if a large portion of the population leads idle lives, some fraction of those will do something with their time that turns out to be useful, such as creating art or music (things which right now don't usually pay well so not that many people take the risk of dedicating time to these pursuits because they're busy working normal jobs to support themselves and their families), or inventing something new.
The main problem with the whole idea is that resources are scarce, and likely will be for quite some time: freshwater, food, and energy are all in scarce supply. Eventually, maybe we'll be able to build giant orbital ships which grow food using solar energy or something, but for now and the foreseeable future those are going to be big, and growing, problems.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by mc6809e · 2013-06-13 13:00 · Score: 4, Informative

By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.
Don't confuse leaving a group with leaving a territory.
Besides, it still doesn't work in the case of the USA. Wherever you are on the planet, you still must pay income taxes (at a minimum). It's costs over $400 in fees to renounce your citizenship. You essentially must buy your freedom.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by femtobyte · 2013-06-13 13:04 · Score: 2

The only way this idea works is if you abandon all physical reality, and move everyone into The Matrix
Or, you share the nice places. Once in a while, you get to rotate through some beautiful prime vacation spot. The rest of the time, you live in your comfortable but mundanely situated ordinary dwelling. In the process, people work on finding ways to make the "normal" habitat areas more luxuriously comfortable and appealing: you might not get a private island rainforest, but you'll always be an easy stroll away from some beautiful parks and garden groves, isolated from the noise and stench of 20th-century traffic. With a little earthmoving machinery, even Boring Flatsville can get some interesting topography and nice places to watch a sunset.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by funkboy · 2013-06-13 14:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either. But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source. It's actually not a bad thing if you like the Star Trek way of working not for money, but to better Humanity. It goes back to our Cave Man roots in a way.
Actually the closest implementation to Marx's vision was the Paris Commune that formed in the power vacuum of the early 1870s after the Prussians captured Napoleon III. After losing what was basically a mini-civil war to the Versailles government forces, everyone that was running the Commune was lined up against a wall & executed.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Tokolosh · 2013-06-13 14:04 · Score: 2

You Tories look down on Libertarians like feudal lords used to look down on democrats.
The USA is about the only country in the world which insists on taxing its citizens who are normally resident in another country. And if you renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to have done so for tax reasons, and have to pay an exit tax on all your assets.
Free to go? Not so much. You are an economic hostage.
http://world.time.com/2013/01/31/mister-taxman-why-some-americans-working-abroad-are-ditching-their-citizenships/

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by dryeo · 2013-06-13 14:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really the problem is energy. Given an unlimited (or close to) source of really cheap energy, everything else can be done. Water can be desalinized or otherwise cleaned, food can be grown in greenhouses or even mines and so on. The key to utopia is cheap endless energy and it is a lot easier putting solar energy stations in orbit then farms.
Of course this would never happen as our whole system depends on scarcity to the point that artificial barriers are put up to ensure plentiful things stay scarce.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by Baloroth · 2013-06-13 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is.
No, it's wrong in the way Marx himself envisioned it. I've read a bit of his work. He openly stated that his Communism would only work if it was implemented across the entire world, and only by force. That's right: he both knew and embraced the fact that the Communist Revolution would be violent. This is why all the serious attempts at his vision have, in fact, been violent: it's an inherent part of the system. Not only that, but since it has to operate world-wide, it must spread itself, again by force if necessary. That is why the US was so scared of Communism: because Communism, as Marx envisioned it, cannot survive unless it destroys its enemies. It's also why the USSR, and other Communist nations, have sought to conquer or convert others. It's inherent in the system. Marxist Communism sought to destroy all other forms of government and social order.
And if you don't believe me, let me quote the Communist Manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Any system of government that seeks to force itself upon the world, whether other countries want it or not, is evil and wrong.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by femtobyte · 2013-06-13 16:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Regardless of what Marx wrote, the development of Marxist ideology under the Soviet government strongly and officially diverged on this point. A key tenet advanced by Stalin was Socialism in One Country: that, rather than seeking global domination and revolution, the USSR should work towards making itself into a model Socialist paradise; once its own working class enjoyed a utopian life ahead of the rest of the world, then workers in all other countries would rise up to gain the same paradise for themselves. Of course, the USSR ran into a few problems before completing its internal transition to the happiest, wealthiest, most productive place in the world... but, in the meantime, the official state doctrine was not the "original" Marxist stance of necessary global revolution, despite endless fearmongering propaganda in the West that the Ruskies were just itching to swarm over the border and eat your babies.
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by cold+fjord · 2013-06-13 20:45 · Score: 2

despite endless fearmongering propaganda in the West that the Ruskies were just itching to swarm over the border and eat your babies.
The Soviets invaded and annexed Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. The Soviets invaded and annexed part of Finland. The Soviets invaded and annexed part of Poland.
Eat babies? No. But the Soviets deliberately created a famine in Ukraine that killed 7 million people, men, women, and children, including babies.
After the invasion of Poland, the Soviets massacred the Polish army's officers and police officers in the Katyan Forest massacre - est. 22,000 dead
Swarming over the border with the Red Army might have been difficult at various times.
1937-1941 - Military Purges

The whole Red Army development program was nearly wrecked in the 1937-39 period when Stalin's paranoiac purge of Tukhachevsky and some 35,000 other high-ranking officers in the Red Army brought the whole military machine to the verge of chaos. As was the case with the entire Soviet military establishment, Soviet operational maneuver concepts and forces suffered severe damage in the late 1930s, in part because Stalin purged their creators. The multiple waves of military purges, which began in 1937 and lasted into the opening months of World War II, liquidated most Red Army theoreticians and senior commanders. Inevitably, therefore, their ideas fell into disuse or outright disrepute. Incredibly, the slaughter of thousands of his military personnel was seated in Stalin's own paranoia, not any known coup attempt. The families, the friends, and the colleagues of the condemned either joined them in oblivion or sat with faces frozen in mute resignation, waiting for the summons that could arrive at any moment
Although the senior ranks experienced the most severe losses in terms of percentages (11 of 13 army commanders were shot, as were 57 of the 85 corps commanders and 110 of the 195 division commanders), the numerical bulk of the victims came from subordinates unfortunate enough to be on the wrong staff or performing the wrong mission. Estimates of the total losses created by this mass bloodletting range from 15,000 to 30,000 officers, depending upon the dates used and the figures available. And, most of the 1,836,000 surviving Red Army prisoners of war liberated from the Axis powersat the end of World War II were sent to the Gulag as "traitors to the motherland."
The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:FIrst Post Maybe? by deadweight · 2013-06-14 02:17 · Score: 2

And you never will. Just like libertarianism* and every other utopian vision, it relies on a perfection of the human spirit that is not possible. * libertarianism - def. That enjoyable, but brief, period between the end of powerful government and the start of strong men and corporations realizing they have no more authority over them strong enough to pay attention to.

Mr. Wozniak... by CodeHxr · 2013-06-13 09:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Please come with us into the black van. NOW! *whack to head, covered with black bag*

Re:Mr. Wozniak... by CanHasDIY · 2013-06-13 10:14 · Score: 2

Please come with us into the black van. NOW! *whack to head, covered with black bag*
Dear PTB:
DO NOT FUCK with the Woz. You cannot even begin to comprehend the forces you are dealing with.
That is, unless you want all of nerd-dom to come down on your ass like fucking Mjölnir.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Mr. Wozniak... by Darinbob · 2013-06-13 11:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Only a nerd would threaten a security service comprised of no-neck jocks with Mjölnir. They'll be scratching their heads for months now wondering what this is and if it's from some terrorist language.

As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by intermodal · 2013-06-13 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not surprised to see that Woz has his head on straight enough to see that we've become what we feared. I can only hope that, despite the odds being against it, my countrymen will listen to this wise man. But history tells me that they'll ignore it, just like anything else they don't want to hear.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by Black+Parrot · 2013-06-13 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by perpenso · 2013-06-13 10:08 · Score: 5, Informative

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.
The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism. For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by avgjoe62 · 2013-06-13 10:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

When I worked in the Pentagon, there was a display case containing three pieces of the Berlin Wall. I never paid much attention to it - it was just something I passed by while walking to and from the office.
But one day I took some time and looked at the pieces. They were covered with graffiti. I distinctly remember a "Kilroy-was-here" and a lot of so-and-so loves so-and-so bullshit on the wall. Almost drowned out was the name of a young man on the top of one of the pieces, with his date of birth and the date of his death written below. And right below that was the phrase "Endlich frei" (Finally free). This young man was seventeen years old when he was shot for trying to leave East Berlin and travel to West Berlin.
There was a quantifiable difference in the ways the US and the USSR treated their citizens. And while that gap may be narrowing the fact that we are reading about this in the newspapers and debating this is a good thing. I remember a saying that was said during the aftermath of WWII - "If you want to know what atrocities the Russians committed, look in the graves. If you want to know what atrocities the Nazis committed, look at the receipts. If you want to know what atrocities the Americans committed, look in the newspapers."
Let's hope that always stays true.

--
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 10:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

> The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism.
I was raised in Soviet Union and live in Russia. And I must say that Black Parrot is quite right.
Emigration from Soviet Union and from Russia was/is driven by various factors. People who emigrate tend to rationalize their choices, sometimes in really twisted way. Well, you really need to find a way to tell yourself that the leaving of your fatherland was justified, to live in peace with yourself. If you want to learn something about Soviet Regime, I'm afraid that an average Soviet (and Russian) emigrant is a wrong person to rely on.
I'm no apologist of USSR, but I must say that you western people have a really bizzare view of it that hasn't got much to do with reality.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by MacTO · 2013-06-13 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree with what you say, however the propaganda of America about American's greatness and the propaganda of America about the Soviet Union's tyranny were also far from the truth. The two nations were closer than the American government would ever admit to, although nowhere near as close as the paranoid elements of society would claim.
The sad reality is that both nations were stuck in a paranoid mentality during the cold war. This resulted in a reduction of civil liberties. The situation was far worse under the Soviet regime, but the American government often committed acts that it claimed were the domain of communists and that had no place in their own free society.
We see something similar happening today, only in the name of terrorism.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by girlintraining · 2013-06-13 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country. We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism." We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators. We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them. That same year, the government continued to trumpet that a 98 year old man, on his deathbed, recanted and said that the Rosenbergs were spies... but the press quietly buried what he said right after: That the principle charge against them, the reason they were executed -- passing secrets about how to build the atom bomb, they were innocent of. They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
So I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns... In fact, I would argue they were more or less the same, both in substance and quantity. But I'd be happy to entertain any significant act that you feel the USSR undertook that didn't have a parallel from the USA.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by alen · 2013-06-13 11:21 · Score: 2

Life was good for card carrying communist party members like my grandparents. For everyone else, not so much
In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by cold+fjord · 2013-06-13 12:36 · Score: 2

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?
The Russians, to their great credit, have made the old Soviet archives available to varying degrees over time. (Sometime more open, sometimes less open.) Although it was known before, the record has become ever clearer. Stalin, who lived into the 1950s, was a monster of epic proportions. After Stalin died, the Soviet state continued to be a police state, even if it relaxed somewhat at first, and more gradually over time. But it was, from start to finish, a totalitarian regime. It simply transformed from extremely oppressive and genocidal to not genocidal but still highly oppressive.
If you want to prove that there was no difference between the Soviet Union and the United States you will need to find tens of millions of bodies of ordinary Americans in mass graves in the United States of people killed by bullet or starvation and overwork in prison camps run by an American secret police that you will have to identify. Many people are misinformed on this matter. The media seldom carries stories on the Soviet Union any more. Although the lack of media reporting contributes to people being uninformed today, some of it is due to parts of the media establishment itself that tolerated reporters that were toadies to dictators, such as (the should be infamous) Walter Duranty: New York Times Concealed Ukrainian Genocide
It's understandable that the media seldom covers the Soviet Union any more since it is history, not news, and the Soviet Union has been gone for 22 years now. Although the lack of coverage about the behavior of the former Soviet Union might explain why people are uninformed, it doesn't explain why communism still holds an attraction for so man people. For that you have to understand that the human mind processes some things better than others, and some things badly. Communism is effectively a mind trap - the theory sounds so beautiful to many people that it must be true, but in practice it has always led to oppression, often bloody at that. And please spare me the "no true communist state has ever existed" routine. Dozens of nations have tried. It can't be done, but people will keep trying because the ideas won't die despite a century of bloody failure and misery in so many countries. There are still communists in America today. Communist parties and associated movements used to take their guidance from Moscow. Many leftists supported them, but never realized their fate should the communists come to power. ( Leftists Will be Shot in the U.S. When Marxists come to power- KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov ) Communism can't succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and self-labeled scientific theories that are nonsense.
Here some resources if you want to know more (focusing mainly on the Soviet Union):
The Soviet Story (2008) Section in Soviet Story on the Soviet inflicted Ukrainian holocaust (only about 5 minutes in)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by perpenso · 2013-06-13 12:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.
Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
Read up on the Stalin era. Even later Soviet leaders were disgusted.

While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.
And in the odd perverse mathematics of war may have saved lives compared to blockade and starvation or invasion and mass casualties by conventional weapons. The simple fact was that Truman was expecting 500,000 American dead and 5 million Japanese dead if the war continued through conventional means. The atomic bombings were a tragedy, the problem is that the other options may have been far worse. A classic negative-negative decision, all your likely options are bad.

The casualties from mass fire bombings in Tokyo were comparable to an atomic bombing. Read Eugene Sledge's "With The Old Breed" for an account of the fighting on Okinawa. President Truman had such accounts in his mind when he made the decision. Also note that civilian casualties on Okinawa were comparable to an atomic bombing. I realize it is popular today to say that Japan was going to surrender anyway but the historical facts are that the surrender after the atomic bombings and after the emperor's decision nearly failed when a military coup was attempted. The plotter's had to "rescue" the emperor from the bad advice his ministers were providing and prevent his surrender message from going out. We have no idea what would have happened without the atomic bombings, imminent surrender is hardly a foregone conclusion. Again, Truman faced a negative-negative decision, he had no good option, rather one option that may produce fewer casualties (military and civilian) than the others.

We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.
Agreed, terrible.

We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism."
Seriously? This is some great and terrible crime?

We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.
McCarthy was a buffoon. The anti-communist witch hunts wrong. But you are making my point for me. These witch hunts were nothing like those under the Soviets. Read up on Soviet gulags.

We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them.
Decoded 1944 Soviet cables confirmed Julius worked for the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that they helped accelerate the Soviet atomic bomb program. Various Soviet officials eventually confirmed that Julius was a wartime spy.

They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.
Primary source or merely a secondary confirmatory source, large contribution or small contribution, its still wartime espionage. Was the penalty excessive, perhaps, but executing a wartime spy is hardly in the same category as executing those who disagree with a government policy, as we saw in large scale during the Stalin era. Again, you are merely confirming the US and Soviet governments were nothing alike. No one is claiming the US government was without flaws and mistakes, just nowhere near the Soviet level. Enlightened leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev were the exception not the rule.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, and now we have to listen to russian trolls on american online forum?! Zamechatelno!
You, nasty cowards, guess what I've experienced the past regime, as well as the current state of democracy. I live in one of those sattelite to russia countries. Do you know what is to not have electricity every 2 of 4 hours? To not be able to buy food, because in the groceries there was none? To be able to study some of the most desired subjects in universities only if you have relatives from the communist party? To qualify for promotion only if you, and all your relatives have clean political past? Millions of your people to be executed by the rule of the said communist party for faulty accusations of treason?
And last, but not the least, do you know how visitors from countries of the eastern block called russians, after they returned home from the USSR?
They called them svinji(pigs)!
Well, tovarishci, I know Putin pays well, but I'm sure you know that Gasprom is collapsing as is the whole russian economy.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by tftp · 2013-06-13 13:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Does killing tens of millions of your own citizens in forced collectivization, forced relocations, artificial famines and camps that worked their prisoners to death count for anything?
Are you talking about American Indians?
Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by BrokenHalo · 2013-06-13 13:49 · Score: 2

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone.
I lived in buildings in London as recently as the late '80s where that was the case.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by Ihlosi · 2013-06-13 19:42 · Score: 2

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?
Shoot people attempting to leave the country.
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-14 01:34 · Score: 3

A great number of those "American Indians" were not actually in "America" at the time they were killed. Something to consider...
Imaginary lines on maps never justify murder.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-14 01:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Let's hope that always stays true.
Have you read the recent press reports about reporters phones being tapped en masse by the Obama Administration and reporters threatened for reporting on certain stories? Sen. Peter King (NY), known supporter of terrorism (IRA donor), is calling for the arrest of (to hear him speak, he'd probably prefer a drone strike) Glen Greenwald.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by SolarCanine · 2013-06-13 09:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Since Woz didn't post the video to YouTube, or in fact even make the video, not really.

Obligatory by aitikin · 2013-06-13 09:46 · Score: 2

In Soviet Russia...

--
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve

digital take over by theatrecade · 2013-06-13 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree with Woz. Nobody owns anything. Everything digitally is licensed. Even when you hold a physical copy in your hands it's on loan for 60$. You ever actually read a EULA? With the NSA spying on you on everything not only don't you own anything nothing is private anymore.. welcome to the new America! Welcome to the New World... I hope you enjoy your stay and by the way ignore that 4th amendment only the 2nd one kinda counts....

--
some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person

Re:digital take over by fredprado · 2013-06-13 10:05 · Score: 2

If you consider "owning" as being able other people to use it, maybe what is lost is what makes Linux great indeed. But it is lost just for us, the common people, corporations and the government still have this right,

On the other hand, if you consider "owning" as being able to do whatever you wish with it, whenever you want, losing that has nothing to do with open source or Linux. It actually goes against what makes it great and the idea that made it come to be.
Re:digital take over by fredprado · 2013-06-13 10:06 · Score: 2

I meant "being able to prevent other people from using it" in the first paragraph.
Re:digital take over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 10:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually Russians in Soviet Russia could own a house and almost every other thing anybody could own in the West. Communism was/is about the ownerships of means of production (factories, land) and not pencils or cars. http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/RussianAlly/RussianAlly9.htm

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by fredprado · 2013-06-13 09:50 · Score: 2

And even if he did he would still have the original copy...

Re:There's something we'll always own. by Black+Parrot · 2013-06-13 09:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Apparently SCOTUS just ruled that you can't patent 'natural' DNA.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Concept of Ownership by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-13 09:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ownership follows power. If you don't have more brute force strength than the next domestic house ape, you own nothing. Scribbles on a piece of paper like the constitution are not power.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by mcgrew · 2013-06-13 09:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Isn't that like a book proclaiming how bad literacy is?

It's not like Woz posted the clip. And I commend him for it, I couldn't have said it better myself. IMO the cloud is only good for things you want posted publicly.

Personally, I won't do online banking simply because the internet is an insecure form of communication, although I'll shop online with a credit card if necessary since the most it will cost is fifty bucks (and perhaps increased surveillance by the NSA if I buy the wrong book, like maybe 1984.)

Speaking of which, the NSA is cooking up more CYA lies for us. Is anybody stupid enough to believe anything the NSA says?

--
Free Martian Whores!

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely by Zeio · 2013-06-13 09:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is nothing new.

We live in a oligarchical collectivist police state where a banking cabal, central governments, the military industrial complex and megacorps control everything.

The little guy, the small business, freedom, liberty. Gone.

Welcome to wage slavery, plebeians. And you voted your captors in.

--
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.

Microcomputer revolution was against the "cloud" by perpenso · 2013-06-13 10:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

The microcomputer revolution that Woz was a significant contributor to was in part a movement against the "cloud" of that day, remote minicomputers and mainframes where your software and your data lived. One of the goals of the microcomputer revolution was to have your software and your data on your computer on your desk.

If we were to have a second revolution in the spirit of the preceding perhaps we would have our own "cloud" servers hosted on our own IP address at home, offering ubiquitous access to all of our computers and devices and syncing between them. Again, all your data being hosted on your server on your desk (or in the corner or the closet).

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement? by johnjaydk · 2013-06-13 10:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

After all, here is a guy (who insists on using a juvenile nickname) who had the wool pulled over his eyes by perhaps one of the most successful psychopaths of this and the last century: Steve Jobs. Do you really think this guy is qualified? The analogy would be asking RMS for hygiene tips, or ESR for advice on your sex life.

It wasn't more than a few years ago that we had a comment from a guy who shared office with RMS, who insisted that RMS had excellent hygiene so I would suggest you stick to car analogies. As to Woz, he might be a bit naive but he is a great engineer and his heart is in the right place. I would love to have more friends with those qualities.

--
TCAP-Abort

And... by FuzzNugget · 2013-06-13 10:09 · Score: 2

He's right.

That there aren't millions of people storming the halls of government with torches and pitchforks is more telling than anything else of how oppressed the USA has become.

Re:And... by CanHasDIY · 2013-06-13 10:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

He's right.
Of course he is; he's "The Wizard of Woz." ... and I say that as a fairly ardent Apple Hater.

That there aren't millions of people storming the halls of government with torches and pitchforks is more telling than anything else of how oppressed the USA has become.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as "storming the halls of government" would require the resources to make a 2000 mile journey (one way), as well as very likely costing me my source of income, my home, my family... not really feasible.
Now, you coastal folks who can hop on a train and be to DC in a couple hours? YOU have less excuse.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by Penguinisto · 2013-06-13 10:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by fahrbot-bot · 2013-06-13 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi
Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies. [ So when James Clapper, was asked, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and he responded, "No" he wasn't technically lying to Congress... ]

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by suutar · 2013-06-13 10:50 · Score: 2

I'd think that the NSA asking for the data to be sent to them would qualify as "collecting". So the question is do they send a new request every three months when their warrant renews or are the telecoms just sending it out of the goodness of their hearts at this point? (Google's statements seem to indicate the NSA is asking, but of course, everything is subject to interpretation...)
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-13 11:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi
The Stasi were more competent than average; but what arguably makes the 'in capitalist America' system cleverer is how it can function as a (relatively) inexpensive appendage of free market incentives that already exist.
So much useful data gets generated, and sometimes compiled, purely for the convenience of self-sustaining private sector actors(the phone company routing calls to the correct cell and billing you, your credit card issuer keeping accounts in order, your ISP shepherding the little packets about, advertising weasels scrutinising your behavior to try to sell you stuff, Everything Facebook, people 'checking in' to random shit on foursquare, etc, etc.) You don't need to bother with the (impressive; but rather unsustainably expensive) 'more than 10% of the population acting as at least part-time informants' business. You just copy the data that the private sector generates automatically!
Now, copying, storage, and analysis aren't free, by any means; but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than having to gather the data yourself and then pay for storage and analysis. Plus(solving a second problem that commies always had trouble with) your intelligence apparatus doubles as your consumer-goods R&D and focus grouping apparatus, since large parts of it are shared between marketing weasels and spooks, so you don't run into those embarrassing bare shelves and unfashionable lifestyles...
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-13 11:20 · Score: 2

Quoth James Clapper, director of national intelligence: "This has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too cute by half. But it is—there are honest differences on the semantics of what—when someone says 'collection' to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him."
He also characterized denying 'collection' as "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no,'"
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by BlueStrat · 2013-06-13 11:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access,...
You mean, exist in a reality where there are no secret NSA rooms mirroring all the data from major carriers?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/2040206/ex-att-tech-says-nsa-monitors-all-web-traffic
No. Clapper is a lying POS that needs to spend many decades (his remaining life) inside a super-max cell.
And he's far from the only one in this government (from both political parties) that belongs in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, and many executed for their crimes against all US citizens of all political/religious/ideological stripes and the betrayal of their Oaths of Office to protect and defend the US Constitution that have been highlighted by the string of scandals and revelations of late, and their outright lies under oath in response to questions.
This is not a (R) or (D) issue. They don't even bother keeping promises to their own Party's constituents unless it fits their agendas. They lie and betray everyone while defying and destroying the Rule of Law and constantly seeking to further restrict and redefine individual liberty and Constitutional Rights.
They see themselves as our masters and ALL of us as serfs. History demonstrates repeatedly that this is what happens when a government and those running it gain too much power relative to the people.
The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by CptNerd · 2013-06-13 14:04 · Score: 2

The scary part is, there is a court, set up to only deal with them, just like the IRS Tax Court only deals with IRS cases. So, since the FISA court almost never turns down a request for a subpoena, it's a thin bandaid of legality over a suppurating sore of government abuse of power.

--
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by s.petry · 2013-06-13 14:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

almost
Try always. in place of that. It was released the other day, FISA has approved 100% of the requests it has received from agencies. Giving rise to a reporter calling it a rubber stamp(correctly)

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by ccalvert · 2013-06-13 14:57 · Score: 3, Informative

"Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting"
Do you hear yourself? Political groups are not supposed to be tax exempt. That is what the IRS was looking for: "Is this 501c4 application for a civic group or a political group?" You say that these groups couldn't engage in political activity because of the IRS investigation. That means you are saying they are political groups, not civic groups, and therefore should not have received tax exempt status.
I'm not saying the IRS didn't make very serious mistakes: they did. But your claim that it effected the election is by definition off point.
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by bkmoore · 2013-06-13 15:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

....I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi
Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies....
The STASI did not have enough agents to spy on the East German population. That is why they relied on "Unofficial Colleges (IM)" or informants to do most of the eavesdropping for them. What the NSA and the ISPs/Telcos do in tandem is not very different than the old STASI / IM system. The only difference is the STASI had to rely on the technology of the day; typewriters, microphones, and tape recorders. The NSA system is digital and automated.
With enough AI, the NSA could easily achieve a kind of automated super-spy system that records each and every criminal action by anyone who posts online information, uses the telephone, etc. Remove that mattress label, mention it on the phone, or post it on /. and get a letter from law enforcement asking to pay a fine. Or they could wait until you get caught for something big and tack on every little "crime" you have ever inadvertently committed, such as eating an illegal lobster, and yes there is a federal law against that.
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by dgatwood · 2013-06-13 17:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed.
Yes, it does, and the election results prove it...
And I suppose you believe that elections in various third-world nations prove that their governments operates according to the will of the governed, too. An election that is not free is not an assertion of assent. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the U.S. election system was designed (plurality rule or worse), and because of the insane amount of money required to campaign for any national office, our elections are effectively rigged so that only a couple of candidates actually have a chance of winning, no matter what the two parties might want you to believe. That's hardly a free election by any reasonable standard. Therefore, the election does not prove anything except that more people voted for one candidate than another (at best).

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by LongearedBat · 2013-06-13 18:40 · Score: 2

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.
This is not intended as a troll, but as a serious question...
What are the pro-gun ownership people doing about it? Isn't that the main argument that people in the US use to reserve the right to own a wide variety of military weaponry?
Or have I misunderstood the gun control debate? (Note: I don't live in the US.)
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by fahrbot-bot · 2013-06-13 18:41 · Score: 2

If I give you a bag of marbles every day and you do not discard them, then you are still collecting them. It doesn't matter whether you took them from me or whether I give them to you willingly.
Well... I'm collecting bags that happen to contain marbles. You collected the marbles and placed them into the bags. Unfortunately, a lot of things in the legal sense can depend on semantics.
In the case of James Clapper, the senator questioning him was Ron Wyden (D - Oregon) who is currently on the Select Committee on Intelligence and (I imagine) already very well knows all about PRISM and such. According to this Huffington Post article (and probably others), Clapper was given the list of Sen. Wyden's questions prior to the meeting so Clapper would have a chance to give a "straight answer" - about a classified program in a public meeting - to a question Wyden already knew the answer. Clapper said he gave the most truthful untruthful answer he could given the situation. Wyden should be bitch slapped for asking the question in the first place. I understand they're trying to cover their asses, but what part of "classified" don't elected officials understand.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by Patch86 · 2013-06-13 19:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the responder (James Clapper) had wanted to answer the question in the "most truthful" manner, he could have answered with more words than "no". Such as "No, but we didn't need to collect it because we have been provided with massive quantities of data simply by asking companies to provide it to us".
What Mr Clapper did there was what we like to call "lying by omission". By answering a question in such a way as to deliberately misunderstand what is being asked of you and therefore deliberately not providing the information expected, you are lying. It doesn't matter if you did so by saying as few words as possible.
There is no other way to interpret his answer other than that he was deliberately attempting to not tell Congress what Congress wanted him to tell them.
Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by Patch86 · 2013-06-13 19:55 · Score: 3, Funny

I read in one article that they've turned down exactly one request in their history. Which is a scary thought- what on earth did that request contain that even they couldn't bring themselves to rubber-stamp it?
Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs. by BlueStrat · 2013-06-13 22:16 · Score: 2

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

This is not intended as a troll, but as a serious question...
What are the pro-gun ownership people doing about it? Isn't that the main argument that people in the US use to reserve the right to own a wide variety of military weaponry?
Or have I misunderstood the gun control debate? (Note: I don't live in the US.)
Turning to the 2A is the last resort. Contrary to how media has portrayed gun owners as a bunch of dangerous hicks just looking to shoot somebody, in actuality there are vanishingly few like that. They tend to quickly end up in prison or as testaments to Darwin. We will try to work through the system as much and as far as possible before turning to violence.
There's a saying in the US about the four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, to be used in that order. We are still in the soap & ballot box stage, and entering the jury box stage.
Guns in civilian hands are just one deterrent against tyranny, not the first or the only deterrent.
It will not be gun-owning US civilians who start shooting first. It WILL be US civilians who shoot last if the government starts shooting, however.
The only way the US government could win a shooting war against the US population is if the government used WMDs to kill most of the population, but that doesn't leave much to rule over. Not to mention, the rest of the world might have a problem with the US government employing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons on a large scale for domestic genocide.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

In Soviet Russia by dkleinsc · 2013-06-13 10:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Youtube watches you!
Google searches you!
Email reads you!
MS Windows boots you!
Facebook pictures you!
Text message receives you!

Ok, I'm done, anyone else?

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:In Soviet Russia by Kazymyr · 2013-06-13 11:12 · Score: 2

Phone listens to you!

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut by mcgrew · 2013-06-13 10:27 · Score: 2

I've always heard that, but I've never truly believed it. I think the corruptible are drawn to power. Being power hungry must be a form of mental illness; I mean, who in their right mind would want to be President?

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by robot256 · 2013-06-13 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

It would have been more of a mistake if there was any hope his opponent would have been better on these issues. Frankly, the only reason any Republicans are speaking out against the NSA is because it's Obama's NSA. They were just as complicit as the rest of us when they rammed the Patriot Act through.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by PRMan · 2013-06-13 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have you learned that the next Republican will likely be no better? If not, then you haven't learned anything either.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by CayceeDee · 2013-06-13 10:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll go a step further.. Is ANYbody stupid enough to believe anything this GOVERNMENT says??

Your entire rant is based on the premise that the Bush adminstration was so much better. They started the secret surveillance, but Obama gets the blame because he is still using it. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? I sure do.

USA - USSR + Russian Federation = NWO by some+old+guy · 2013-06-13 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

The old Party oligarchs in Russia gave up on the disfunctional Marxist police state in favor of an overtly fascist police state so they could 1) become as wealthy as Western oligarchs, 2) flaunt it like Western oligarchs, and 3) give the masses a few more consumer shinies to keep them fairly passive, all with a nice facade of democracy.

Yeltsin set the stage, and Putin has made it a tour de force in how to re-brand oppression. "There is no such thing as a former Chekist", as Uncle Boris likes to say.

Russian has become more like the USA, and the USA becomes more like Russia.

New World Order, anyone?

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 11:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's because the surveillance is all fun and games until the government starts cracking down on tea partiers.

Then it's personal.

Freedom Box vs. The Transparent Society by Paul+Fernhout · 2013-06-13 11:30 · Score: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox
"FreedomBox is a community project to develop, design and promote[1] personal servers running free software for distributed social networking, email and audio/video communications.[2] "

I'm not convinced that by itself is enough though. Encryption can be broken and the metadata remains short of anonymizing systems. And laws can just be passed to require registration etc..

Ultimately, the answer to one way surveillance may be more like David Brin's "Transparent Society" where anyone can surveil anything -- so, for example, all cameras in public spaces would be accessible by anyone, everyone would be able to access the NSA's database of phone metadata logs (and anyone could check who had checked someone's phone logs etc.), and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_society
"The Transparent Society (1998) is a non-fiction book by the science-fiction author David Brin in which he forecasts social transparency and some degree of erosion of privacy, as it is overtaken by low-cost surveillance, communication and database technology, and proposes new institutions and practices that he believes would provide benefits that would more than compensate for lost privacy."

A step towards that would be to have laws passed that say corporations with limited liability have no right to privacy in any of their communications or records.

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube? by mcgrew · 2013-06-13 11:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Republican House Speaker called Edward Snowden a traitor. It's a bipartisan police state we now have (this isn't the first time I've said that). I wouldn't doubt if I were on the no-fly list but I haven't been on a plane since you could smoke inflight.

I say Boehner's the traitor, Snowden's a patriot who gave everything but his life (and still may) for his fellow Americans.

If you're against Snowden you're against freedom. That's one brave kid.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws by mcgrew · 2013-06-13 12:00 · Score: 2

My data stays on my own private network (unless I've been rooted). I can synch my own data, I don't need the Cloud Boys to do it for me and have the NSA hoover up everything I have (not that they couldn't if they wanted to but it would actually take effort, unlike when you use cloud services).

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:We're not there yet. by Grishnakh · 2013-06-13 12:10 · Score: 2

Well Star Trek must not have been one of these utopian societies because they had plenty of shit jobs, one big one being working on a security detail (with a red shirt).

It's a generation thing by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-06-13 12:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Woz is from the same generation as me, and people like us who had been through the Vietnam war and the Watergate era, do not trust anything

On the other hand, with the advent of FB and all the social-media thingy, the younger generations (Y/Z/Z+1) tend to accept everything everybody tells them, and they do not mind everybody knows what they do at any given moment

Case in point --- http://pooptheworld.com/

Some of them actually BOUGHT an app so that they can tell the world when they poop !!

That is why I ain't at all surprised at the result of a poll that was taken not that long ago, about the majority of the American people are okay with their government spying on them, as long as they feel that their government is fighting terrorism for them

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:It's a generation thing by kermidge · 2013-06-13 16:02 · Score: 2

Generational thing, yes; also, I fear, a thinking thing. Not that the latter hasn't some connection to the former. More recent generations don't seem to have the tools needed to gain enough perspective to even think to ask why there might be something amiss with broad-scale data gathering on a nations' subjects - er, citizens. I may sound a broken record on this but one looming distinction is that the Baby Boomers are the last generation where a majority read books.
The newer few generations seem to read very little at all, and what they do read is often small stuff. Half the bright lights here seem to have trouble enough with reading comprehension just slogging through a summary - let alone demonstrate ability to read and digest a whole big large ginormous one- or two-page article. All that reading takes, you know, _time_. Time lost to reading, which could be much better spent doing myriad things.
Besides, who the fuck cares what some bearded old has-been slightly-famous once for something or other thinks about something? Privacy? What's that? Gotta be fifty or so just to know what it means, anymore.
Yupper, surrender gleefully such privacy as may be somehow overlooked - government data slurping keeps us safe from things, such as those bombs in Boston.
As for comments on who's doing what where, all it takes is a splitter on a trunk - see Narus et al in relation the original AT&T secret room from a few years back. ISPs and such don't have to hand over shit, it doesn't really matter. Please note, though, and re-read carefully all the quotes from the named nine companies: "no direct access." Doesn't say squat about other-than-direct access. So it can be had both ways.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? [Nope] by BrokenHalo · 2013-06-13 13:36 · Score: 2

I have worked for a small company where my boss was the man who scrubbed the toilets (and without complaint). His "take" on it was that he was paying his staff for expertise he didn't have, so he got on with all of the other things that needed to be done in the interests of getting the most value for his money.

An unusually enlightened attitude, I might say...

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? [Nope] by datavirtue · 2013-06-13 14:44 · Score: 2

My grandmother always told me as a small child that the boss gets all the crap jobs. She has owned a very small business for 40 years.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Slashdot Mirror

Woz Compares the Cloud and PRISM To Communist Russia

87 of 549 comments (clear)