Slashdot Mirror


We Can Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia

An anonymous reader writes "After the past year's revelations about NSA spying, it's hard to read any commentary about society without dire warnings of the coming (or already present) surveillance state. Sci-fi author Ramez Naam makes the point that while government surveillance needs to be fought, it's actually not as bad as what we were promised in decades past. 'Aldous Huxley published Brave New World in 1932. And while Brave New World is remembered more for predicting government-controlled biological engineering of the masses, it also features government surveillance, media manipulation, and thought control. This is an old idea. Yet somehow, today, in most of the world, governments have dramatically less control over their people than they did when Huxley and Orwell wrote those words. Indeed, the average person on Earth is more free today, in 2014, than he or she would have been in the actual year 1984. The arc of history has bent towards more freedom.' Naam also explains that the technological advances allowing the bulk collection of personal data also provide us with cheap and easy means to fight government overreach."

267 comments

  1. Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the government doesn't control the media and control us through fear of terrorism? Because it seems to me that they kind of do

    1. Re:Wait what by alen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      as someone who grew up in the 80's with constant real terror attacks, its not a fear
      9/11 was the largest attack in a long string of attacks against the USA for the previous 20 years

    2. Re:Wait what by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 4, Informative

      In what country did you grow up in the 80's in, because all of the terrorism I remember happening in the 80's happened in other countries.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    3. Re:Wait what by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And? Fear of a real thing is still a fear, and the world is full of real threats. The question is: is the fear proportional to the danger? And it's pretty clearly not where terrorism is concerned. Even in 2001, the undisputed high-water mark for US terrorism deaths, only a few thousand people died in the attacks, versus the roughly 40,000 who died in car crashes. It's pretty clear the fear had nothing to do with actual danger, but rather with media sensationalism and propaganda.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Wait what by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Unabomber, Pam Am flight 103 ,
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

      Then in the 90's
      1993 WTC bombing, timothy mcveigh, etc.

      And that is the ones I remember and 1 minute with google. People are always blowing shit up in someones name.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Wait what by alen · · Score: 1

      in the USA and yes, most of the attacks were directed against americans
      the marine barracks
      the american killed on the cruise ship
      the night club in germany
      pan am flight 103
      some TWA flight where 4 americans were killed because they were americans
      WTC bombing in the 90's
      USS Cole
      the embassy bombings

    6. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      LOL so did I 'constant real terror attacks'

      yeah what 4-5 things happened which where hugely hyped up through the media,.. couldn't be a distraction from

      Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.
      Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.
      El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
      Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.
      Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.
      Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.
      Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
      Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.
      Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.
      Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.
      Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
      Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.
      Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.
      Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.
      Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President

    7. Re:Wait what by maliqua · · Score: 5, Insightful

      its not even remotely possible that the terrorist attacks are inspired by the actions of your military are they?

    8. Re:Wait what by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also recall the Strategy of tension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Wait what by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I think you've got that mostly backwards - the terrorist attacks were mostly because our military and black-ops teams have been continuously fucking with the region for the better part of a century at least. I think we can all agree that Saddam was a terrible, *terrible* leader - wouldn't you be pissed at the people who put him in power and continued to prop up his regime? (not that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but his is the name everybody knows)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *woosh*

    11. Re:Wait what by cavreader · · Score: 0

      As long as people continue to give the terrorists a free pass on their violence by blaming the victims it will never stop. Every terrorist group or totalitarian leader on the planet is always given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the atrocities they commit.

    12. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I remember the 80's, petty terrorism wasn't at the core of our concerns because we all knew its victims wouldn't even be a rounding error in a real war. When you have world leaders act blase about possible nuclear exchanges, other stuff just doesn't seem so scary in comparison.

    13. Re:Wait what by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a "long string of terrorist attacks"?

      Gee, growing up in, say, Ireland or Israel would've probably shaken your precious soul...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Wait what by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, c'mon, that's a trick question. No matter how he answers it it would be very anti-American. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Wait what by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not my fault our government makes it so easy. :(

      Though I would like to assert that anti-US-government != anti-American. We lost control of the government a long time ago, if we ever really had it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every terrorist group or totalitarian leader on the planet is always given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the atrocities they commit.

      As has the United States government & Military.

      One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    17. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Terrorist" attacks happen for a reason; they do not occur in a vacuum. If you want to know why Islamic extremists target occidental assets and people, simply examine US and Soviet foreign policy since 1945. While "we" were conducting a Cold War using client States, and stoking regional, ethnic and religious conflict for our own ends, we were p*ssing a lot of people off.

      This is not a justification, nor an excuse, for the attacks "we" have endured; it is an attempt to understand the processes at work. If you don't understand why events occur, if you don't heed the warnings from history, you are condemned to repeat them.

    18. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long as people continue to give the terrorists a free pass on their violence by blaming the victims it will never stop. Every terrorist group or totalitarian leader on the planet is always given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the atrocities they commit.

      As long as people continue to give the Government a free pass on their violence by blaming the victims it will never stop. Every Government group or Government leader on the planet is always given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the atrocities they commit.

    19. Re:Wait what by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The threat of terrorism is real. What I would expect from honest government (yeah, yeah...) is a statement that in this case our privacy does not outweigh the threat, and that they will put rules and oversight in place to ensure that collected data is only used to combat real terrorist threats. Whether or not the threat really does outweigh our right to privacy is beside the point; what worries me is that the limits of what the state can do with that data is a subject that doesn't even come up. On the contrary: the retention periods for collected data are ridiculously high, and there's always talk to use the data for other useful purposes like tracking down hardened criminals such as people with outstanding parking tickets, deadbeat dads, or shoplifters on the lam.

      Personally, I don't think our government can be trusted with our private data. But if they have to be, then I'd like to see clear rules and boundaries. Where are they?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    20. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have torrents for those movies?

    21. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blame the victims? You have it backwards. The American army began sticking it's nose into middle eastern conflicts long before the locals retaliated. You are the aggressor, not the victim.

      Is it justified to blame the American citizenry for what their government does behind their backs? No. Do they share some of the responsibility? Absolutely. Inaction is a choice with very real consequences. Sticking your heads in the sand is not innocence.

    22. Re:Wait what by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as people continue to give the terrorists a free pass on their violence by blaming the victims it will never stop. Every terrorist group or totalitarian leader on the planet is always given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the atrocities they commit.

      When the Allies deposed Hitler, they did so with violence. Were they terrorists? No, they were military forces waging one of the most justifiable campaigns in human history. What about French Resistance, who posed as civilians and tried to oust a foreign conqueror from their homeland? Probably not. What about the commando who sank a passenger ferry carrying heavy water for German atomic bomb program in Norway? Sure, civilians died, but denying Nazis the atomic bomb was kinda important. So how about Iraqi insurgents, who posed as civilians and tried to oust a foreign conqueror from their homeland? Or Obama and the drone assasinations? Or the people rioting in Ukraine

      It doesn't help that "terrorist" is used as the boogeyman nowadays, so you can't know if it refers to someone committing atrocities or someone airing your dear leaders dirty laundry.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Wait what by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      This. A billion times this.

      I have a lot of friends in the US and I do miss them. But with their government going apeshit I can't reliably believe that if I go visit them I will return safely again. You simply can't trust the country anymore to stick to its own rules. All they have to do when I piss them off sufficiently is slap the "terrorist" label on me and off I go and disappear. Yes, the chance is tiny but it's like with the death penalty: There's a nonzero chance that it might be used against me unjustly and there's nothing I could do to prevent it but staying out of the jurisdiction that could impose it.

      But don't feel singled out, I don't go to Russia, Iran or China for similar reasons.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Wait what by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Blame the victims? You have it backwards. The American army began sticking it's nose into middle eastern conflicts long before the locals retaliated. You are the aggressor, not the victim.

      No, Barbary pirates operating mostly out of Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli started a program of targeted piracy against US ships in the 1800s. The same place that's in violent turmoil today.They just found another attack vector and set of tactics for today's world.

      That's why the US Marines were originally formed. They were called "Leathernecks" because they wore high reinforced collars as protection against beheading by scimitar during hand-to-hand battles.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    25. Re:Wait what by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      Citizens have effectively zero effect on national politics. They're just easy sauce.

      My theory is that extremists would prefer to just die randomly rather than sit through enough C-Span re-runs to figure out the right targets.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    26. Re:Wait what by causality · · Score: 2

      This is not a justification, nor an excuse, for the attacks "we" have endured; it is an attempt to understand the processes at work.

      Anyone who needed to have that explained to them did not have an opinion worth listening to. Consider it a litmus test.

      The small-minded and emotionally immature are perpetually concerned with fault and blame, be it international conflicts or their own personal lives. They have neither the presence of mind nor the objectivity to focus on cause and effect. For as long as they engage in such self-limitation, true understanding remains beyond their reach.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    27. Re:Wait what by causality · · Score: 2

      Citizens have effectively zero effect on national politics. They're just easy sauce.

      If half the effort spent fawning over American Idol and pop music were spent peacefully marching on Washington DC, that would change.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    28. Re:Wait what by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ireland is a good example of what we need to do. It was a disaster all the time the UK government was taking a hard line against the terrorists, refusing to negotiate or compromise. Then in 1997 a Labour government got in and started a peace process with both sides around a table, and soon after the violence mostly ended to be replaced with a power sharing democratic government. Men who said they would never co-operate with the enemy and never accept anything other than total and unconditional victory, divided by their religions and hundreds of years of history, managed to work together.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Wait what by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Terrorist" just means the smaller side in an asymmetric war.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re: Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So bombing McVeigh and the Unibomber then? How's that work?

    31. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, they were military forces waging one of the most justifiable campaigns in human history.

      That's a narrow view.
      If any xenophobic culture had dominated the planet prior (rather than the polyglut and Politically Correct culture of the modern era), the german side would have seemed the most justified.

    32. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are in FISA's records. Unfortunately, since FISA isn't allowed to keep a record of their own rulings, you'll have to ask the NSA to get them.

    33. Re:Wait what by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The Irish, in essence, only wanted local sovereignty. That isn't really going to work with al Qaida. They don't just want what they think is "theirs," they want it all, to rule the world. There is a fundamental conflict. They will have to either give up, or be patient enough for the Western world to die off through the currently plummeting birthrates that are well below replacement rate. Who is going to convince them to do that? The conflict in Ireland was more ethnic than religious, and even then the difference in religion was nothing compared to the extremist Islamist position and that of any Western country. You are thinking in the right timeframe though - decades. We basically have one down, and how many to go?

      --
      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
    34. Re:Wait what by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      That's a "long string of terrorist attacks"?

      Gee, growing up in, say, Ireland or Israel would've probably shaken your precious soul...

      The Israelis, British, and Irish had time to acclimate, and grew up with it. We will acclimate as well. The conflict with al Qaida and associates won't be going away any time soon, probably not for decades. And do keep in mind that there is going to be a growing problem in your neighborhood in the future. But at least the Germans are stepping up their intelligence operations on all fronts, so you should be cozy.

      What does your precious soul think of that?

      --
      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
    35. Re:Wait what by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      the major fear infringing on people's freedom is fear of losing their job, losing their house, losing their medical insurance, losing their kids' tuition, and losing their retirement.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    36. Re:Wait what by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      don't worry, the second amendment will keep us all free. look how the armed citizens rose up and prevented the government from interning innocent Japanese-Americans in WWII. Or how they got together to chase the National Guard off the campuses in the 60s so that the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State didn't happen.
      oops, gotta go, i just got an email from Rand Paul telling me that Obama and the UN are going to take my guns. I'm not kidding, I really did just get that email.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    37. Re:Wait what by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That I'd probably feel safer if they didn't step up their intel ops.

      Total security is a myth. The closest you could get to is a prison with everyone in isolation. That's about as close as you can get to total security. But then again, who'd want that?

      If you want to be free, you have to pay the price. The price is responsibility and risk. But people don't want to pay that price, they don't want to be responsible and they want to be coddled, they want to be secure and safe without doing anything for it, and that makes it very easy for governments to sell an illusion of protection in exchange for taking away freedoms. All it takes is to scare the people a little and they will beg for it.

      Personally, I'd rather accept the risk and responsibility. Yes, that means I have to watch out and take care, and it even means that I might one day be a victim of a terrorist attack. But I'll be a free man until that moment.

      It's odd that we're so easily giving up freedom for the weak promise of protection against a nebulous threat that may or may not exist while there are people facing very real and actually very likely repercussions or even death for the slim chance to ever reach that freedom we so easily throw away.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Populist slogans mean absolutely nothing in the real world although they do make good tweets for the simple minded. The most difficult concept to understand in todays world is context. Every single US decision and foreign policy goal since the country was founded was and is still predicated on the actions and goals of others. Replace the US in the above sentence with any other country and it is still an accurate statement. When going back through history and judging events you need to take into consideration that the societies and cultural norms were very different than they are today. Trying to apply today's societal norms to things that happened 50 years ago does not really lead to valid arguments. The absurd commentaries on the actions of the past is the ultimate in Monday morning quarterbacking by people who judge the truth to be only those facts that justify their own opinions. Any facts that contradict their understanding is labeled as lies and dismissed by those who consider themselves smarter and well informed then a great many others. Generalizations and out right ignorance of the historical record is only exposing how easy it is to manipulate large populations with half truths and over the top hyperbole. It is not only the governments of the world who use disinformation to cover wrongful actions. There are a lot more non-governmental individuals and groups who play the game even better. And in both cases the only thing accomplished is raising the level of animosity between competing sides and end up destroying the good and the bad at the same time all in the name of the righteous.

    39. Re:Wait what by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Correct - while it's still being fought.

      Ten years after, it means the guys who lost.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re:Wait what by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. George Washington didn't set off wagon bombs in the Boston Market to get his way. Anyone who targets civilians with violence in order to coerce a civilian government is a terrorist, and anyone who tries to conflate that with any kind of military action is a damned fool. i.e. you.

    41. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't feel singled out, I don't go to Russia, Iran or China for similar reasons.

      Except government in those countries is likely to be much more poorly organized than in the US. With the possible exception of China, it's harder for government to monitor and target some minor infraction when their systems are so broken. This is why some US expats say they feel much more free living in countries that border on failed states, such Greece, Russia, and (*coming soon to a country near you, like Italy, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of the Mediterranean, and even Ireland*). You don't get fined for taking the rubbish out on the wrong day (as you can in Australia). You are just far less likely to get into trouble for spitting on the sidewalk in less developed countries unless the system already had hold of you.

  2. umm no by dlt074 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we are not more free. we are over regulated, over ruled, over interfered with. period.

    you can double-speak it anyway you like. spin spin spin. we are less free then ever here in the US of A.

    1. Re:umm no by ToasterTester · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      There is nothing they can't monitor and collect these days, the only thing in our favor is ability to analyze the mountain of raw data they have already.

    2. Re:umm no by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      we are less free then ever here in the US of A.

      People in the US are freer today in some ways, and less free in others. There is almost always pressure for the government to do something about this or that. The result is more regulation, and more laws. Economic freedom in the US has been falling, and making economic recovery more difficult. The result has been devastating to many people whether they are new graduates or the unemployed that can't find a job. Various other questions are being settled in the courts, such as the legality of recording the police, 2nd Amendment rights, and various questions of employment law.

      The effects of Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank bill, and various others are starting to really kick in. There are other dangers posed, such as the DHS's license plate tracking proposal (scuttled, for now), and many others.

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

      --
      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
    3. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Utterly predictable as well as off-topic.

      Are you sure you're not a bot?

    4. Re:umm no by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets completely ignore the fact that what the economy is recovering from is the huge blunder of the private banking sector following deregulation. Lets repeal Dood-Frank, If they screw up again than we will simply bail them out with tax-payer money like last time, but I am sure they learned their lesson the first time around and what we need is even more deregulation.

    5. Re:umm no by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The housing crisis was "a huge blunder" that was a forced error due to Federal intervention trying to drive up home ownership. There was a reform attempt, but it was blocked in the Congress by, guess who? Dodd-Frank is an impediment to recovery, and yet another excuse for Federal snooping.

      Post Mortems on the Financial Crisis

      --
      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
    6. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the content of your message, and the one above, the preponderance of evidence is that you are the bot, and a simple one at that.

    7. Re:umm no by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      The housing crisis was "a huge blunder" that was a forced error due to Federal intervention trying to drive up home ownership.

      For some reason, you failed to mention that the National Review article you linked to lists many causes of the sub-prime mortgage mess, not just intervention in the market by Fannie & Freddie. I'm sure it was a harmless oversight on your part, though.

      I also suspect you're aware that the sub-prime crisis itself was only a part of the broader financial crisis of 2008, and it's pretty clear to me that GP is referring to the broader fiasco, not just the mortgage part.

      Dodd-Frank is an impediment to recovery, and yet another excuse for Federal snooping

      The Washington Examiner article you linked to says "The Dodd-Frank Act, which established CFPB, bars the bureau from collecting personally identifiable financial information on consumers", so how is it that Dodd-Frank provides an excuse for government snooping? Seems to me the law does just the opposite.

      In any case, the relevance of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare to a discussion of avoiding a surveillance state is something that escapes me. But I'm sure you've got it all figured out. Care to share?

    8. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets completely ignore the fact that what the economy is recovering from is the huge blunder of the private banking sector following deregulation. Lets repeal Dood-Frank, If they screw up again than we will simply bail them out with tax-payer money like last time, but I am sure they learned their lesson the first time around and what we need is even more deregulation.

      You still have these economic bubbles, credit card industry, student loans.. Are the next ones that are going to burst..

    9. Re:umm no by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      from is the huge blunder of the private banking sector following deregulation. Lets repeal Dood-Frank,

      If you think Dodd-Frank is going to fix the problem because it's 'regulation', then you're going to be surprised the next time the banking system crashes.

      There is good regulation and there is bad regulation. Learn to recognize the difference.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:umm no by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

      Well, except for people who were slaves. Or a woman who wanted to vote before 1920. Or a minority before the Civil Rights movement. How exactly are we defining "Freedom"? We can't measure it without quantifying it. In what way have you been directly restricted by the government?

    11. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're looking at message content, do cold fjord's posts elsewhere on this site count as evidence? Because you don't have to read very many of his little gems to conclude he's a partisan hack who labors to spin every problem in the country as the fault of Obama/Democrats and their wicked laws.

    12. Re:umm no by sjames · · Score: 1

      So fanny and freddie put the rich bankers in a headlock and made them offer a bunch of sub-prime mortgages as AAA financial instruments? The banks made a bunch of loans with built-in time bombs because there was a cocked gut to their heads? The chance to make buckets of money was not at all a motivator?

      Meanwhile, the article you link is a mere opinion piece without even an attempt to support it's position. You did notice that, right?

    13. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Subprime market only became a "problem" once the economy soured. Only then did it become apparent a swathe of mortgages couldn't be paid.

      It must be remembered, there were no laws forcing banks to make bad loans; there were recommendations to increase home-ownership amongst the working poor, but there was not a single law to make banks lend to anyone. Banks were lending to the poor because it was hugely profitable. The banks were granting the loans, then repackaging them with other debts and selling them on the markets: to other financial institutions and individual traders. All of this was underwritten by private insurers, like AIG (not Government, as is popularly thought by right wing types).

      The entire system blew up because the banks were overleveraged in the markets. They got into that position because of a lack of oversight, they were supposed to be "self regulating", no one was watching what they were doing.

    14. Re:umm no by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      You missed his huge hard-on for the National Security State.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    15. Re:umm no by sl149q · · Score: 1

      And the bigger problem is NOT whether we will be tracked and watched but WHICH level of government and to what purpose.

      Most people will allow that extensive tracking of their activities is OK WRT to making sure that terrorists can't do a repeat of 9/11.

      But once the data is collected will it be put to use by other parts of the government for more mundane purposes.

      Should the data be available to other police forces investigating more mundane things like the war on drugs? Money laundering. Remember the data is collected, wouldn't it be easy to use it to help here? Drugs are really bad and the people that sell them are really bad and we need more tools.

      What about chasing down murders and rapists? Again, data may help and those are pretty bad people...

      What about tracking down people charge with any felony (or your local equivalent)? The data is there. These people are bad. We want them in jail! And we don't want to increase LE budgets.

      How about misdemeanours? These people are not as bad, but law enforcement is SO expensive and there are so many of them, and the data is there... please can we have it too!

      How about getting tax cheats to pay up? The feds own the data, and they want to use it. Then the states get involved because they have a need to know. And do we really want our local municipal government using this stuff to chase after us to collect bylaw infraction fines and parking tickets? Lest you think this is not going to happen remember that these guys can ALREADY through you in jail if you don't pay all of the above.

      At every level the powers to be will say that the data is there, and they should have access to make THEIR particular problem less expensive and more efficient. And they will be correct access WILL make their problem less expensive and more efficient.

      And that is what we call a very slippery slope.

    16. Re:umm no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This yo yo THINKS he is free while in reality he is following the coporate agenda that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We may not have a bunch of government operated pawns but we certainly have corporate operated pawns. Real freedom is decreasing.

    17. Re:umm no by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just happy to complain about me?

      --
      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
    18. Re:umm no by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Good to see that somebody's sarcasm detector is actually functional, I guess.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:umm no by alexo · · Score: 1

      You are more free to do anything that poses no threat, real or imagined, to your masters and your masters' masters.

      In other words, the cattle is better cared for.

  3. The Problem by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that most 'normal' people aren't going to use things like Tor in order to not not be spied on by their own county, nor should they have to.

    1. Re:The Problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If it comes bundled with Firefox, they'll use it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:The Problem by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      If it comes bundled with Firefox, they'll use it.

      No they won't. Have ever had google just ban you and not let you search claiming that you are a robot no matter how many captchas you successfully fill out? Thats a regular occurrence on tor. You make tor the default and half your user base will be on chrome before you can say "browser". I'm am all in favor of any and all anonymity/encryption efforts but the general public doesn't care enough to encrypt their email let alone use tor.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  4. startpage.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privacy focused search engine

    1. Re:startpage.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it require javascript to work?

  5. It will be a riot by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    There is a new technology that makes it impossible to lie in court or when interviewed by police. I suppose businesses will want to use it on employees as well. It seems that the muscles that control the voice box move even when you only think a thought instead of speaking it outloud. A cop could easily tell everything that is going on in your mind with this technology as could a wife or a divorce lawyer. I wonder how society would do if the truth were always available for all to see. Imagine politicians and diplomats being interviewed.

    1. Re:It will be a riot by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Most of my thoughts aren't in language, how could my throat movements possibly give me away? Even the ones that are in language tend to flow far faster than my throat could shape sounds.

      Then again I suppose there's an awful lot of people who can't even read any faster than they can internally verbalize the words. But even then the throat is only responsible for producing whistles of various pitches, turning that into words is done primarily by the tongue and lips. Any attempt to understand the whistles is going to be horribly prone to interpretation.

      And how would that do more than make lying a bit more difficult - you just need to avoid thinking much about the truth and/or start verbalizing the lie to mask any other movements.

      If I mentally verbalize "I would like a banana", it's going to be pretty hard to get that from throat motions of iiiiooooooiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, and it certainly doesn't mean I actually want a banana.

      In fact after carefully mentally verbalizing several sentences I can't detect any throat movement at all - perhaps it's just an order of magnitude smaller than when speaking, but I think I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:It will be a riot by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There is a new technology that makes it impossible to lie in court or when interviewed by police.

      Again?

      It seems that the muscles that control the voice box move even when you only think a thought instead of speaking it outloud.

      So learn to meditate and let your mind be as still as a crystal lake. Or a stagnant cesspool. Depends on what you're questioned for and whether you're guilty, I guess.

      I wonder how society would do if the truth were always available for all to see.

      It is, usually. Some details might be less than obvious sometimes, but most social interactions where power is involved are a morbid little dance where everyone knows exactly what's going on and do their utmost to avoid admitting it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:It will be a riot by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great idea for a movie, Jim Carey would be excellent in the lead role.

      Seriously, I was born in 1959, in my lifetime blacks freed themselves from the company store and won the right to vote, women unchained themselves from the kitchen sink and took control of their reproduction, young men are no longer conscripted to kill other young men, homosexuals can hold hands in public without risking jail and/or chemical castration, teenage mothers are no longer forced to give up their children at birth, men and women can cohabitate without the approval of the local preacher.

      Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased in the last half century. We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:It will be a riot by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased in the last half century. We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.

      I'm not sure surveillance and tolerance belongs on the same axis. We've moved from a fairly low-tolerance, low-surveillance state where many people did "unapproved" things in private to a high tolerance, high surveillance state where the government knows but it doesn't care. Graciously supported by "if you got nothing to fear, you got nothing to hide", "think of the children" and "either you're with us or the terrorists win" crowd, panopticon believers and other useful idiots privacy is rapidly shredded.

      It doesn't get bad until the government gets repressive and you realize that the curtains you've opened can't be pulled shut again without going on all sorts of watch lists and shitlists for covert activity. Look at the countries that don't exactly have a stellar record for freedom, is it getting better there? Not really, through more surveillance the people in power have gained even more control. Crushing any form of resistance is often about catching it in its infancy, making people believe it's hopeless to gather enough to make a change. It's a lopsided fight leaning more and more heavily against the incumbent.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:It will be a riot by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      ... Seriously, I was born in 1959, in my lifetime... teenage mothers are no longer forced to give up their children at birth, men and women can cohabitate without the approval of the local preacher. Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased ... We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.

      You paint a mistakenly rosy picture of American, I assume, society. The incarceration rate in America is beyond the dreams of, say, WWII era dictators. And state governments routinely snatch babies from their families - often without cause. (I won't even deal with you call a "small" step backwards.) Sure, if you selectively list positive developments, freedom looks as though it has marched forward, but if you remove your filter, you'll realize freedom in America is more crippled than ever.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    6. Re:It will be a riot by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      Another delusional Boomer mistaking decay for progress. The black population is probably less healthy than in the age of slavery, the sluts are completely unhinged by fears of rape and their inability to be mothers, young men just fought the longest war in American history and face the worst employment market...and the rest is hardly freedom, it's obeying animal lust, a frenzied orgy before extinction

    7. Re:It will be a riot by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Fuck you.

    8. Re:It will be a riot by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      The real people in power don't care about gay marriage, or illegals crossing the border, or abortion. Rather, they embrace those wedge issues as they keep the public distracted and divided so they may continue their evil deeds. But surveillance is a universal boot on the neck of the people, a control mechanism over all that will be nearly impossible to turn off once it's in place. And since 9/11, the people in the USA have been bending over, taking it, and asking for more.

    9. Re:It will be a riot by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I have 7 very special words I get to pull out every so often. This is one of those times.

      "You must be great fun at parties."

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:It will be a riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased in the last half century. We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.

      We not dealing today with just one "small step backwards", but with a massive problem with far-reaching implications. Ethics problems in law are like a cancer that has metastasised to affect the whole legal system, with terrible long term implications for the majority of the population and the nation as a whole.

      In the past sixty or seventy years the US legal system has gotten ever more complex, with legal professionals in or working for Congress and the State Legislatures writing increasingly complex laws. We see the results today in the Patriot Act, at hundreds of pages, and Obama Health Care, at thousands of pages. We also see lots of contradictions in the legal system, with ever more infringement of freedom of speech (which Congress may pass NO LAW infringing) and the 2nd Amendment (which MAY NOT BE INFRINGED either by Congress or the State Governments). We see judges routinely ignoring the legal ethics issues associated with legal professionals creating artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.

      In short, the US legal system has become a disastrous mess, as a result of the inability of the legal profession to act appropriately in situations involving ethical conflicts of interest. Corruption in politics has increased in lockstep with corruption in law. If you haven't figured this out, you haven't been paying attention.

      This is not good for individual freedom. In fact, it's really bad. The disastrous mess in the legal system is the reason government agencies believe they can get away with overzealous mass surveillance (when there are lots of contradictory rules and precedents, the government agencies simply pick the ones that favour their actions and ignore the others), but that problem is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

      The Civil Rights movements of the 60's and 70's did NOTHING to fix this problem. Many of the abuses that the Civil Rights movement fought against were caused in part by abuses of and within the legal system (it was, after all, legal professionals that allowed the "separate-but-not-actually-equal" system to be implemented and enforced), but the underlying problem was never corrected (like a doctor treating the symptoms without curing the disease). It is unclear whether the problem will be fixable short of another American Revolution. In short, the Civil Rights movement was at best a partial victory, and arguably a failure.

    11. Re:It will be a riot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I was born in 1959, in my lifetime blacks freed themselves from the company store and won the right to vote, women unchained themselves from the kitchen sink and took control of their reproduction, young men are no longer conscripted to kill other young men, homosexuals can hold hands in public without risking jail and/or chemical castration, teenage mothers are no longer forced to give up their children at birth, men and women can cohabitate without the approval of the local preacher.

      I was born around that time and I strongly disagree with your simplistic analysis. The things you mention were relatively ineffective social control levers and were doomed to fail anyway because these damaged the ability of large percentages of the workforce (women, blacks, gays) to be efficiently exploited and to be re-contained as dumb little worker bee slaves. Economics will get rid of impediments to the illusion of being "free". Cohabitation became a non issue once pregnancy could be easily avoided. Government and corporations have evolved to find far better, more subtle control mechanisms these days that touch at the very core of manufactured paranoias: "Terrorism", "Think-of-the-Children", and the un-winable "Wars on Whatever-it-is-this-week", all of which are Double Think and straight from the Ministry Of Truth. We now have much more effective buttons being pushed and we more subtly manipulated than we ever have been. The result is growing huge Orwellian control and spy systems and a docile, bovine public who care more about the latest reality tv or national talent quest than they do about waking up and taking back their lives. If you don't believe that Think-of-The-Children and pedo hysteria are manufactured or at least encouraged, read up on the insane, irrational reaction to Rind et al and tell me it does not suggest something weird going on. Note that Wikipedia is heavily censored and propogandised in this area.

  6. Sorry by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    You're too late.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  7. In some ways it's worse than promised. by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're ether in a surveillance state run by the State, a surveillance state run by Corporations, or a mixture of both. Avoiding one means getting the other at this point. I don't see a third option without destroying the tech that makes it possible, and I'll be keeping my my computers until the Amish Technology Police State take them from my cold dead hands.

    1. Re:In some ways it's worse than promised. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How about banning all non-essential collection, storage, or exchange of personally identifiable data without explicit permission from the originating party? ISPs must flush all account-specific information as soon as it's no longer necessary for correct functioning. Google and Amazon can't make horribly inaccurate personalized recommendations unless I opt-in (and opt-in must not be mandatory). etc. etc. etc.

      I'm not seeing any loss of functionality for citizens, except what's lost due to lack of surveillance-based profitability. And I see no problem with that.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:In some ways it's worse than promised. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      To a large extent parts of it are a surveillance state run by the State for the benefit of corporations. Airbus vs Boeing had it's day in court to confirm that around a decade and a half ago. While some may see it as "good for business" such a situation tends to suck for any business that does not have someone from the government in their pocket. Such a government sucks for anyone that would like to be represented instead of the state doing whatever they have been bribed to do.
      There may be problems now but it's a very long way down that road and things can get a lot worse. When European investigators have recently found more than three trillion in untaxed US funds sitting in one tax haven, as a mere side effect of their own investigations, it makes me wonder how much influence was exerted to get the IRS to look the other way while those funds were taken offshore. If you can bribe the machinery of a state to lower it's income then bribing it to do just about anything seems possible. At that point it stops being your country, and can become a plaything external forces with enough cash - you've already got an Australian who owns a US TV network setting a big chunk of the political agenda.

  8. your eyelids are getting heavy, repeat after me,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rock on /. from a slightly simpler time; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC3FCS-NtAI

  9. It IS NOT a dystopia by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 0

    Please read carefully and don't pre-judge this, but surveillance this isn't a dystopia.

    There have been cameras at malls since at least the 1980s. At convenience stores probably the same.

    No one complains about those.

    Libraries have had membership cards since at least the 1980s, video rental places the same since the 1980s. Your Visa or Mastercard has tracked your purchases since maybe the 1960s. The phone company has known a list of people you called since maybe the 1940s. The company you work for probably has kept an eye on employees since the 1970s or 1980s.

    Every time a criminal is busted or arrested due to a camera, people are relieved.

    Don't you feel relieved that in the modern day they can usually track down hit-and-run drivers that run over pedestrians or get the identity of thugs that assault people or commit fraud. There are irrational paranoid fears of a 1984 style future or a Soviet Union future, but in 1984 the evil government was actually losing the war, the Soviet Union disintegrated and China has vastly liberalized.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, and if you have nothing at all shameful in your life, then you have nothing to hide.

      You're also a boring fuck.

    2. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Arith · · Score: 1

      I can agree surveillance has it's place, but there is a line. I think that line is somewhere in Utah right now.

    3. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The classic low res cameras at malls where not expected to be connected to parts of the US gov in some real time HD with sound public private partnership.
      e.g. Philadelphia police look to register private cameras in SafeCam (April 25, 2013)
      http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/st...
      Add in cheap gov options for facial recognition, gait recognition, regional (state) license-plate tracking and over time with new networks and funding - welcome to a HD dystopia.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 0

      Libraries are not legally allowed to keep on record which books you have borrowed. They are only allowed to track which books you currently have in your possession.

      This is the case in the socialist shithole called Sweden. It might be better in the capitalist paradise of the US.

    5. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by SpankiMonki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one complains about those.

      That's because in those days there weren't laws like the Patriot Act subverting the 4th Amendment.

      There are irrational paranoid fears of a 1984 style future or a Soviet Union future...

      It hasn't been that long since someone would be labelled "paranoid" and "irrational" for suggesting that the US government was surveilling *all* phone calls and electronic communications of US citizens. Yet here we are.

    6. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      "Sure, and if you have nothing at all shameful in your life, then you have nothing to hide."

      I have nothing to hide! Seriously, nothing at all! So no need to check. All is good.

      Move along!

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    7. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Why should I care if the cameras use facial recognition? How is that different than my phone GPS tracking me? Or my license plate number of my car being visible?

      I spend time at home and work and shopping.

      Here's a protip: During the day, I am usually at work. No need to track me!!

      If I am not at work, I am probably at home! Again, no need to track me!!

      Aw shit, the government already knows where my home is and where my work is because of tax returns.

      Aw shit!! They've known this about people since the 1950s!!!!


      Damn you dystopian future! Damn you!!!!!

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    8. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      No one complains about those.

      No one? Are you sure? Because you'd be wrong; I do.

      But I can recognize the difference between mass government surveillance and limited surveillance on privately-owned property. The fact that you don't seem to be able to is a bit sad.

      There are irrational paranoid fears of a 1984 style future or a Soviet Union future, but in 1984 the evil government was actually losing the war, the Soviet Union disintegrated and China has vastly liberalized.

      Why don't you tell the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were murdered or abused by governments that being highly cautious of the government is "irrational"? What's truly irrational is this fantasy land viewpoint that the government is made up of perfect angels; it's made up of human beings, and they're every bit as corruptible and subject to errors as the Bad Guys that you fear. Give the government too much power, or powers that could easily be abused in horrendous ways, and you will not like the results, provided you have a functioning brain.

      But no. Forget the fourth amendment, privacy, freedom, and all that garbage. We're the land of the free and the home of the brave! Free and brave people discard their freedoms for safety!

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    9. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you're beginning to understand; either that, or you slipped up. There is indeed no reason to harass innocent people if they currently have zero evidence of wrongdoing.

      Then again, your name contains "Troll," so that's most likely exactly what you are. To spew forth such nonsensical garbage that's been debunked countless times over makes this quite apparent.

    10. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2

      Cops and government officials get busted every single day from surveillance. Government employees get fired every day for their behavior caught on camera.

      Cameras bring truth. Truth brings freedom.

      You are for a more open and transparent government right? Hopefully you are for open source?

      Openness rewards good people.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    11. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Cops and government officials get busted every single day from surveillance. Government employees get fired every day for their behavior caught on camera.

      Cameras bring truth. Truth brings freedom.

      The government spying on nearly everyone's communications is a fair bit different from individuals recording what they see. Privacy, the fourth amendment, and freedom are all at stake in the former case, but not in the latter.

      Way to ignore just about everything I said, though.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    12. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to hide; therefore, you've no reason to want to look.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't cameras, it's cameras feeding data to computers. Automated, efficient dystopia.

    14. Re:It IS NOT a dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And remember, you don't get to define shameful. They do.

  10. Intrusion by Spazmania · · Score: 2

    It's because we have so much freedom that we know enough to be alarmed by how much government intrusion there is.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  11. Surveillance states exists as part of the problem by Skinkie · · Score: 0

    Does anyone really think that the NSA wouldn't have been overthrown by the people if the government wasn't there to protect their precious surveillance state in the first place, using means of violence against human society as hole? What we need is a way to establish a status quo in ultimate personal security. A way no sniper riffle in Ukraine could hurt you, nor you would be able to hurt anyone else, nor you would be moving where you don't want to be taken. This would give a lovely ecosystem that everyone understands.
    We are all quite back at Animal Farm et al. The question is: what should happen before mass hysteria outbreak occurs beyond the typical themes such as "religion". Passive democracy is certainly not quite cutting it, and is it better than the past? Probably yes, because people are being held accountable for registered actions. It does sadly not say anything about the puppet master that tries to make us think we are better off now.

    --
    Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
  12. Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we are not more free. we are over regulated, over ruled, over interfered with. period.

    I think spying on Americans is shitty. Regulating discharge from mining companies or oil drilling companies is completely acceptable.

    That's my opinion.

    You may disagree.

    But where does freedom begin and end.

    As for me, business is always wrong because profit makes people eventually do evil. Capitalism makes people spiral to the bottom because of its nature. The excuse of "our bottom line" creates a mentality to destroy the commons and poison people. I have never seen an exception. Please, tell me when the profit motive has helped people over the long term. I would really like to know.

    Yes, I am implying that Socialism is better over the long term. Although, it's still not good enough.

    Economics is the most backwards 'science" ever - it's more of a religion, isn't it.

    1. Re:Where to draw the line. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for me, business is always wrong because profit makes people eventually do evil. Capitalism makes people spiral to the bottom because of its nature. The excuse of "our bottom line" creates a mentality to destroy the commons and poison people. I have never seen an exception. Please, tell me when the profit motive has helped people over the long term. I would really like to know.

      Money is what keeps me showing up at work five days a week. Now I'd like to think I'm doing something useful there, granted I'm not curing cancer or anything like that but still. Throw me in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communist hellhole I'll do my best to be useless and needy. Or better yet, one of the people in power who decide if other people are useful or have needs. Give me the Star Trek utopia and I'll be the bloody useless guy who spends all his time on the holodeck. Which is why I think all the basic income people are on crack, because there's frankly jobs you wouldn't do if you could live well without doing them.

      Money isn't really the cause of anything, it's just the objectification of "What's in it for me?" and honestly, I don't ever see most of my money. They just exist as numbers in a bank somewhere, I can't even wipe my ass with them. They're just easier to use as intermediaries and to gain interest on than buying lifestock and breeding them, forests that produce lumber or whatever else produces "interest". If we weren't using currency we'd still have economics, for example people would look for arbitrage in swapping cows for goats for corn for cows if the exchange rates were off. People would look at the ROI for giving you grain now in return for pork next summer. Maybe they weren't so formal about it, but it still happened long before we started using coins and notes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economics is just the study of how society manages limited resources (labor, capital, etc.). You can't have a society without some sort of economic philosophy, regardless of whether it's socialism, communism, or capitalism.

      I don't disagree with your critiques of capitalism but I am a very cynical person and I don't see how socialism or communism completely eliminate human vices, they just manifest in different ways. We can argue which one is the most socially optimal and such, but we can spin stories all day about how human vices disadvantage any particular socioeconomic system.

    3. Re:Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The solution is less government not more. Specifically the portion of the government that allows people to escape liability if they form a corporation.

      Until business owners are held personally liable for the actions of their employees nothing will improve.

    4. Re:Where to draw the line. by Urza9814 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Money is what keeps me showing up at work five days a week. Now I'd like to think I'm doing something useful there, granted I'm not curing cancer or anything like that but still. Throw me in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communist hellhole I'll do my best to be useless and needy. Or better yet, one of the people in power who decide if other people are useful or have needs. Give me the Star Trek utopia and I'll be the bloody useless guy who spends all his time on the holodeck. Which is why I think all the basic income people are on crack, because there's frankly jobs you wouldn't do if you could live well without doing them.

      Personally, I've always found that work is the thing that *prevents* me from doing things I consider useful. Gimme three or more free days in a row, and suddenly I start writing code and building things and getting stuff done. Stick me in a cubicle for eight hours, I try to do as little as possible for those eight hours, then go home and stare at the TV until it's time to sleep. The more "free time" I have, the busier I become.

      Of course, that's a different kind of work. At work I'm writing scripts for performance testing software. At home I'm building a web-based home theater system with a control console that pops up out of my coffee table. Although I do also volunteer for some community groups, and that goes WAY up when I don't have to work a 40 hour week -- from hours per month or year to hours per day. In the past, when I didn't *have* to work, I'd spend *more* than 40 hours a week volunteering for various groups.

      As for the drugs and holodeck:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

    5. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Until business owners are held personally liable for the actions of their employees nothing will improve.

      Why should they? If an employee steals from my business, it isn't just to throw me in jail.

    6. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 2

      So you don't want the utopia because you are by your own admission a lazy selfish asshole? :-)

      Not a problem. You go ahead and plant your ass firmly on the couch. In a year or two, you'll balloon to 800 pounds and die. Problem solved. The rest of us will be making ourselves useful.

      But most of the Basic Income people aim for live 'OKish' without working. To live well, you need to get a job.

    7. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, but if they steal from me at your order, you certainly should go to jail.

    8. Re:Where to draw the line. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not a problem. You go ahead and plant your ass firmly on the couch. In a year or two, you'll balloon to 800 pounds and die. Problem solved. The rest of us will be making ourselves useful. But most of the Basic Income people aim for live 'OKish' without working. To live well, you need to get a job.

      Well, you can't have it both ways, either it frees up that burger flipping minimum wage earner to go on and write his masterpiece or he'll still be stuck there in his minimum wage job while it's really a bailout to those with money to boost it up but not quite rich enough to do it on their own. So I was exaggerating a little bit, but there's so many things to do that are just for personal pleasure, self-realization or as a hobby that does nobody else any good. That guy who'll instead go to the gym seven days a week becoming some sort of ultrafit triathlon athlete, is he providing anything useful to society?

      For example me and a few friends like to go camping, I'm sure we'd do more of that. It's good exercise, good nature experience and a social event. The tangible output for society though? Nothing. I'd probably spend more time at the beach when it's warm and sunny instead of slaving at an office, but the only real outcomes is a tan - hopefully not a sunburn - and a good time. I think one of the people I know would be on snowboard all winter, he'd love to be a pro but simply wasn't good enough. My dad likes to fish, a friend of mine likes to brew beer but it's hobby scale and not competing with industrial scales at all.

      That's on the leisure time side, on the job side sure there's jobs that are creative, interesting and meaningful but honestly - would you be making burgers and fries all day? Scrubbing the toilets? Emptying trash bins? Driving a taxi? Working a cash register and stocking shelves? I don't think so, maybe an abundance of wannabe star chefs but none of the people doing the dirty and boring bits. And even most of those star chefs probably wouldn't really want to deal with working for a gourment restaurant, which is something else entirely than doing it in your own kitchen for people you know.

      Take a good, hard look at what the people who object say they'd be doing. Then try to imagine a world with basic income filled with people who'll do nothing but their dream job, and even that maybe just on the days they feel like it. I actually have a pretty nice jobs as jobs go, but really... I'm in it for the pay check. Quality of life isn't linear with money, being poor is no fun but once you have enough and start spending on nice-to-haves or outright luxuries I'd easily swap money for time. So if it's OKish money but I could enjoy it 24x7 that sounds better than being well off but trying to cram the good life into evenings and weekends. YMMV.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is what keeps me showing up at work five days a week. Now I'd like to think I'm doing something useful there, granted I'm not curing cancer or anything like that but still. Throw me in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communist hellhole I'll do my best to be useless and needy.

      Thus you are an asshole, and deserve to be lined up and shot. Perhaps Stalin didn't go far enough...

      AC

    10. Re:Where to draw the line. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Never heard of the Rat Park study. That looks fascinating--thanks for the link.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Where to draw the line. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      For example me and a few friends like to go camping, I'm sure we'd do more of that. It's good exercise, good nature experience and a social event. The tangible output for society though? Nothing.

      Nonsense. Society benefits by having members who are healthy and well-adjusted.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Where to draw the line. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      People do evil things, People do evil things to try to push themselves up in the world. In a capitalistic society, they will use capitalism to their advantage, using money to increase their power. In a Communist or Socialist society, they will use the government as a means to do Evil things, to get themselves up in society.

      Capitalism is also used for good. Creating a system where you are not bound by class to improve your life, if you manage your money well, then you could go to the next level. The Bottom Line concept is popular with Publicly Traded Companies, Public Trading companies in many ways are bastardizing the idea of Capitalism, by allowing large numbers of people control a company, thus making the company far more complex to please its share holder. That said, there a numbers of large and small private companies that doing quite well.

      Your view of capitalism is very ignorant on what capitalism and socialism is beyond a high school education.

      Economics isn't that backwards, It is about analyzing how societies share wealth and deal with the fact not everyone can have everything. The principal concept of Supply and Demand, is very elegant idea, and has shown to be true time and time again. The more you have of something the cheaper it is, the more people wants something the more expensive it will become. When the supply price, matches the demand price, we get a point where both sides are happy. Now we laws and regulations to try to knock some things off balance. Copyrights for information for example. a Book or Software can be copied infinite of times thus making the supply infinity thus making all information free (Which would be bad, as there is a lot of work, from a small supply of people who can do it) so the Copyright is a way of keeping the supply down. We also have governments who either put price caps, or subsidize services such as energy. Because the demand is so high, that if left alone the prices would be too high. Now these changes throw stuff off its equilibrium and we often get tradeoffs from it, such as problems with sharing information, or less then superior service.

      The biggest problem with capitalism today, isn't too much or not enough regulations, but lack of education on dealing with it. People should really learn to spot if they really need the product or service or not and find alternatives if they think it is unfair. Too many people are complaining that life is so bad, however they will not change their behaviors to make things better. I will stay at the job where I think I am under paid, until I get laid off, not look for better work, or start your own business. I will go to the movies and complain how much it costs, vs waiting for it to go out on video or wait for it to go to the budget theaters.
      There is little to no education on Advertising, and how to catch the common methods they use, as to make you want the product.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Inciting someone to commit actual crime is already illegal.

    14. Re:Where to draw the line. by causality · · Score: 1

      For example me and a few friends like to go camping, I'm sure we'd do more of that. It's good exercise, good nature experience and a social event. The tangible output for society though? Nothing.

      Nonsense. Society benefits by having members who are healthy and well-adjusted.

      ... and society also benefits from having people go outside and experience quality time with loved ones rather than consuming the shallow, infantile bullshit most heavily promoted by the entertainment industry.

      At least that's my hypothesis: that those who have had meaningful contact with nature are more likely to form healthy relationships and less likely to demand songs from manufactured "artists" that whine about failed relationships from a self-centered emotional perspective that should have been outgrown during childhood.

      The record companies would probably still blame piracy I'm sure.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    15. Re:Where to draw the line. by causality · · Score: 1

      Money is what keeps me showing up at work five days a week. Now I'd like to think I'm doing something useful there, granted I'm not curing cancer or anything like that but still. Throw me in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communist hellhole I'll do my best to be useless and needy.

      Thus you are an asshole, and deserve to be lined up and shot. Perhaps Stalin didn't go far enough...

      AC

      If your social system requires systematically killing even more people than Hitler did, I propose that your system is broken.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    16. Re:Where to draw the line. by causality · · Score: 1

      Inciting someone to commit actual crime is already illegal.

      Yes but a fine that only represents a fraction of your net profits is hardly a disincentive.

      I propose that when corporations commit criminal acts that would land an individual in jail, we should put the corporation "in jail". That means freezing all their assets and bank accounts and halting all sales for as long as a real person would have been locked up. This is certainly doable and would actually be consistent with the (foolish) notion that "a corporation is legally the same as a person".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    17. Re: Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike capitalism where it's supporters prefer you starve to death away from their gated communities?

    18. Re:Where to draw the line. by redlemming · · Score: 1

      As for me, business is always wrong because profit makes people eventually do evil. Capitalism makes people spiral to the bottom because of its nature. The excuse of "our bottom line" creates a mentality to destroy the commons and poison people. I have never seen an exception. Please, tell me when the profit motive has helped people over the long term. I would really like to know.

      Please read a few history books, particularly those that discuss economic issues (commonplace in histories written in the past few decades). Your ignorance concerning this issue is awful. You might try reading Adam Smith as well.

      Pay particular attention to histories that describe everyday life for ordinary people, and compare things in the old days to today -- you'll be shocked at the long term progress that industrialization has led to.

      As you'll find when you read Adam Smith, capitalism rewards people for specializing in things society needs. Governments can't do that because the world is too complex -- the Communists proved that in Russia and China, and the Socialists proved it in India (all of which are now heavily capitalist).

      Even back in the 18th century when Adam Smith was alive the world was far too complex for governments to understand and manage all the details of the economy, and things are exponentially more complex today.

      Please read some books on manufacturing and logistics, so you'll have some idea of the complexity of the modern world.

      What governments can do is penalize people for doing harm while pursuing profit, and regulate dangerous practices (including reasonable protection of the environment). The vast majority of companies play by the rules: people don't hear about this because it isn't news. We get bombarded with all the bad stuff, and those who are poorly educated assume as a result that everything is bad.

      There is NO "spiral to the bottom" and there are a horde of "exceptions" -- you simply haven't bothered to educate yourself.

      Yes, I am implying that Socialism is better over the long term.

      It doesn't have a be a choice, one or the other. If you study successful instances of socialism, you'll inevitably find that socialism that depends heavily upon capitalism.

      For example, socialist medical systems depend upon the "evil" capitalists to fund most of the research that leads to advanced techniques. Socialist medical systems depend upon the "evil" capitalists to build the advanced test equipment (MRI, Ultrasound, etc) needed to diagnose complex medical problems.

      Socialist medical systems depend upon capitalism for the information, research, transportation, production, analysis, and logistics infrastructures needed to educate medical specialists, build the medical facilities, get the tools to the facilities, and get the patients to the facilities.

      There is a huge difference between being able to produce small quantities of something, and being able to produce large quantities. Similarly, there is a big difference between doing many things on a small scale, and doing them on a large scale. There is no evidence that any socialist system can handle that jump in scale, and considerable evidence to the contrary (such as all the shortages experienced by the former Communist nations). If you don't understand this, educate yourself on the complexities of manufacturing and logistics, plus the Agricultural Revolution.

      In short, successful socialism in the real world ALWAYS relies upon a capitalist foundation. You HAVE to have capitalism to build an excess of resources in order for some of those resources to be used in a socialist manner.

      The error that is made in many place is to have more socialism than the capitalist production of resources can support. This leads to huge and unsustainable government debts. It's a problem for the US federal government, and a problem for many US state and local governments. It's also a problem for many other nations.

    19. Re:Where to draw the line. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Society benefits by having members who are healthy and well-adjusted.

      It's still pure consumption, it doesn't produce any products or delivery any services. Until everything happens by magic and robots we still need people to work. Maybe I'm still struggling to make the point, if I got no basic income and the alternative was going broke and homeless I'd scrub toilets all day for minimum wage. However, if I could make a modest living without scrubbing toilets you'd have to pay me a lot for me to scrub toilets all day instead of doing what I fancy. Which means either the toilets go unscrubbed - unlikely due to health and safety regulations - or you'd have to pay someone enough to think "hey, if I scrub toilets all day I won't just be living modestly I'd have a wage that's worth it" which of course sets off a huge wage/price spiral.

      The more you need to pay a lowly toilet scrubber, the less the basic income will be worth. The more you raise the basic income, the more people will demand for scrubbing toilets. And they're not converging, they're diverging. Like I said, at $0k I'd be desperate and would do it for minimum wage. At $10k basic income, maybe for $20k/year. At $20k basic income, for $50k/year. At $30k basic income, $100k+/year. The more I have, the more you'd have to pay me to wash piss and shit and puke all day. Then I'd rather share a tiny apartment and eat Ramen noodles all week. With basic income you have that choice, with no income you don't.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re:Where to draw the line. by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am implying that Socialism is better over the long term. Although, it's still not good enough.

      The people have to choose to give or the system will fail. Government-sponsored socialism, via taxation and regulation of lifestyles, is always going to fail over the long-term. This is because corruption, hypocrisy, fraud, dependency/laziness, etc. inevitably eat at its foundation.

      Voluntary socialism, however, does work. We forget that it is ultimately the individuals that shape how happy we are - not any forced government or economic model. People give and feel good about themselves, encouraging them to give more. Those who receive are lifted out of poverty and eventually gain enough self-respect to move up (assuming social mobility is available in the economy). I know it sounds like it's straight out of an old Sunday School lesson from church to some, but it IS that simple.

      (One could carry this to an even more extreme, basic truth - that the unadulterated basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to all of society's economic ills. Too many people, however, just see the words "Jesus Christ" or "Gospel" and are immediately repulsed - without any critical thought about its base principles. They start yelling about "freedom of religion", child molesting priests, hypocritical televangelists, "religion is the source of all war", anti-"God Hates Fags" rhetoric, "separation of church and state", weird religious cults, etc. Just getting to those basic truths about faith in God/yourself/others, hope, charity, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc. that would lead to happiness is surrounded by too many stumbling blocks.)

      And economics is an attempt to quantify philosophy (with numbers and theories). Since religion is just a subset of philosophy - usually with an all-knowing, all-powerful deity or two mixed in, they are a lot alike - especially when you try to convince someone else that their Keynes/Marx/Greenspan economic theories are wrong.

    21. Re:Where to draw the line. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Several problems with total socialism. You can only get what your overseer gives you. If you want more, too bad. If you don't like your job, too bad.

      I grew up on a farm. Hot, dirty work, but as a child I couldn't leave, slavery, right? At 16 I had a new car, as did my brother and sisters when they turned 16, still slavery? Daddy had a profitable farm. We didn't need cars and on a socialist farm we wouldn't have.

      Just as the Bible says, we need moderation in all things. Unbridled corporate capitalism is bad, just has total socialism is bad. Look at China, Mao's communism killed millions, now with limited capitalism their economy has boomed. We will always have greedy rulers, we as the ruled have to set some limits. If you were in the Ukraine which side of the barricades would you have been on?

    22. Re:Where to draw the line. by Prune · · Score: 1

      Your cow/goat swapping comment implies you've bought into the common myth that money developed as a replacement for barter. http://thememorybank.co.uk/pap... http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/econo...

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    23. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes but a fine that only represents a fraction of your net profits is hardly a disincentive.

      Sounds like you're speaking of regulatory violations not crimes. Inciting someone to break a regulation generally is still a crime.

      I propose that when corporations commit criminal acts that would land an individual in jail, we should put the corporation "in jail". That means freezing all their assets and bank accounts and halting all sales for as long as a real person would have been locked up. This is certainly doable and would actually be consistent with the (foolish) notion that "a corporation is legally the same as a person".

      A corporation isn't legally the same as a person. And corporations can't commit criminal acts. People can.

    24. Re:Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business is *NOT* always wrong, but, if you rephrase it as "profit encourages people to do evil", they you have a point. Businesses need to be carefully monitored and controlled. Unfortunately, there is a long history of regulatory capture, so there needs to be enforceable and enforced regulations requiring that the monitors and controllers not accept any remuneration of any type from the businesses that they are regulating for a decade after becoming a regulator, and for two years prior to becoming a regulator. And "any sort" needs to be understood in a rather inclusive sense.

      People are corruptible, often by rewards that appear trivial. Also by threats, so that, also, needs to be guarded against.

    25. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Let's take an example. Say the basic income is set at the current minimum wage. Would you be content with a minimum wage lifestyle (but with lots of free time) or might you want to do something useful to get money for nice camping equipment and a gym membership?

      Keep in mind too that employers will no longer be able to make work a drudge like so many do today. They'll have to make jobs either highly rewarding and enjoyable to perform or pay very well. For example, no longer allowing sales to promise the moon followed by a 2 month deathmarch.

      It's funny you should ask about a tri-athletes value during the multi-billion dollar spectacle that is the Winter Olympics. Many million people are watching right now as I type this. They must find some value in those athletes.

      Consider how many potential atheletes are too busy working 50 hours a week to even consider training. Think of the potential small business owners who can't afford to even think about giving it a shot. Think how much safer neighborhoods were for kids when responsible adults were home during the day (but this time we could do it without sexism).

      As for the less than amazing jobs, I knew a EE student (now an engineer) who liked his brain dead theater job because he needed to turn his brain off for a few hours after all that studying. McDonalds has already tested (successfully) a robotic burger flopper. It is slightly more expensive than minimum wage workers now, so instead of automating away drudgery, our economic system perpetuates it. Emptying trash bins would be dead simple for a robot. For the same stupid reason, we don't use ronbots for that. It is probable a robot could do the toilets as well. If not, it could be made a lot simpler and less objectionable but nobody does because we have enough desperate people to do it cheap with crappy tools. Meanwhile, the managers would have to be a lot nicer to the employees if they wanted to have any. No more crazy schedules, no more work on Thanksgiving no more demanding that people come in during a snowstorm for a non-emergency job. No more grinding people up and firing them when they burn out.

      Some people like tending bar and driving cabs. Google may obsolete the latter soon. Sooner if cab companies demand it. Other public transit could help as well. Some people would probably do those jobs right now if they could afford the pay cut. Some jobs seem a lot better if they don't come with a rat-trap apartment featuring drug dealers in the hallway and a sense that you can never afford to quit. Sometimes just knowing you could quit makes you not want to.

      Finally, how long do you suppose it will take for going to the beach to get old? It may seem like never now, but that's because your opportunities are limited. How long do you think you could stand being worthless at just above the poverty line?

    26. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, that will be compensated by not having to pay people millions to fail at playing golf since plenty people would happily do the CEO's job for $100,000/year. Divide the rest amongst the janitorial staff. Or semi-automate the job where they wheel up the scrubber with sanitary shields and push the button. Cleanest toilet you've ever seen and not so unpleasant for the janitior.

      Besides that, isn't it only natural that in the absence of exploitation you should pay people more to do undesirable jobs and less to do enjoyable jobs? Doesn't it make sense to do as much as we can to make jobs more pleasant?

      If you believe in markets at all, you'll see that people having more money can't drive prices up in an endless spiral. There is a natural equilibrium and it will settle there.

      or you'd have to pay someone enough to think "hey, if I scrub toilets all day I won't just be living modestly I'd have a wage that's worth it"

      Do you find it acceptable that people get exploited into scrubbing toilets all day for a wage that ISN'T worth it?

    27. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Tell that to SCOTUS.

      Isn't it amazing how a corporation poisons the water for thousands of people and they speak quietly of a possible fine. If a person did that even accidentally, they'd be talking jail time AND fines big enough to bankrupt them.

    28. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I can't prove it, but I suspect you're right.

    29. Re:Where to draw the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why exactly is it worth to bother doing my best to "work" if whatever I do can be stolen by the NSA and their contractors and patented in international law?

    30. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Tell that to SCOTUS.

      It's established at the SCOTUS level.

      Isn't it amazing how a corporation poisons the water for thousands of people and they speak quietly of a possible fine.

      It wasn't a criminal act.

      If a person did that even accidentally, they'd be talking jail time AND fines big enough to bankrupt them.

      A person did do that.

    31. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Come on back to this side of the looking glass and look up corporate law. Here you'll find that corporations are one big Milgram Experiment where individual liabilities are rolled up into the Company. A company that has free speech and other Constitutional protections but but can't go to jail.

      Just sit back and enjoy the hilarity as they play the blame shell game. Who gets the blame for dumping the poison in the water, the CEO who swears that for legal purposes he only golfs and collects ginormous paychecks, the manager who swears for legal purposes he was told the earth dam was adequate, the lower manager who swears he said they were NOT adequate or the guy with a shovel who had no idea that stuff was toxic.

      SO, who was criminally negligent? That's right, the corporation. We'll fine them a few thousand. It's a good thing there wasn't any negligent homicide! If there was any of that we might have fined them nearly a quarter of the money they saved through their negligence!

    32. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      SO, who was criminally negligent? That's right, the corporation.

      You just listed four people who were negligent. If you can't show criminal negligence among the parties actually involved in the activity, then there wasn't any criminal negligence.

    33. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your answer is contrary to reality. You must be talking about what you believe should be the answer.

    34. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Your answer is contrary to reality.

      You have no basis for that claim. You listed everyone who was involved and/or responsible. If none of them can be prosecuted for criminal negligence, then there's no criminal negligence. It doesn't get any more real than that.

    35. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The corporation is prosecuted for the negligence and the penalty is a fine. Where have you been for the last century?

    36. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The corporation isn't a person. You obviously don't understand what "corporate personhood" is. It's a legal mechanic for how to treat corporations under certain circumstances, not a universal equating of corporations with people.

      Also, laws which prosecute property (which a corporation can count as) are among the most unjust laws of the US today. I think it would be a really bad idea (and unconstitutional to boot) to implement your previous ideas on this subject.

    37. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read the news.

    38. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      So do you have an actual rebuttal? Or is your empty rejoiner going to be it?

    39. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Read a law book. What other arguments could I have for someone who seems to have lost touch with reality?

    40. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's going to be empty rejoiners then. I'll just note that the US Supreme Court has yet to recognize the full range of personal rights and privileges such as voting, serving on a jury, getting a driver's license, getting married, etc. This is a firm counter to the claim that somehow reading more on the subject will change the US Supreme Court's opinion on corporations.

    41. Re:Where to draw the line. by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, it was actuially a blow off. An attempt to sorta politely end a conversation that couldn't proceed due to your unwillingness to even tip your hat to actual documented fact. So I'll just say

      *PLONK*

    42. Re:Where to draw the line. by khallow · · Score: 1

      An attempt to sorta politely end a conversation that couldn't proceed due to your unwillingness to even tip your hat to actual documented fact.

      You need more practice then. Because you failed just as hard as this task as you did at your original argument.

      I'll finish then by summarizing my position. The US Supreme Court does treat corporations similarly to people particularly in political and economic areas of protection (such as free speech and protection from unlawful or arbitrary seizure of assets). They don't treat corporations as people. The "corporate personhood" scheme is a legal fiction of convenience, not an equating of corporations with people.

      Further, this was done because of real abuses such as taxation, seizure of assets, and suppression of speech that would be grossly illegal, if it happened to people who weren't associated with a corporation.

      Further, crimes don't just magically happen. People cause them. It makes no sense to go after an inanimate object rather than the people who committed the crime - not just because it punishes the innocent for the benefit of the guilty, but also because it provides an easy, low cost way to evade the law. It's a lot easier to make a new corporation than it is to serve a prison sentence.

  13. Gee... by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    ...if only there was some process we could use by which we could affect change in our government.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck finding anyone so squeaky clean the NSA can't get a single bit of leverage on them.

    2. Re:Gee... by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      I fondly await the emergence of such a process.

    3. Re:Gee... by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that *would* be nice.

      Unfortunately due to extensive lobbying and the well-understood weaknesses of first-past-the-post voting, in the US we're pretty much limited to picking between Sock Puppet A and Sock Puppet B every couple of years, with potentially independent 3rd-party candidates being unable to compete. They may work for slightly different subsets of powerful special interests, but the evidence is pretty clear that they don't actually listen to their constituency much - just look at the voting records of your representatives as compared to the recommendations of their campaign contributors.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Gee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to provide some evidence that has ever happened.

  14. No, you cant. by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    You cant avoid it. You are not in control of it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  15. Well, some of us are. by khasim · · Score: 1

    First off though, who is Ramez Naam and why should I care what his opinion is?

    Secondly, "freedom" has never been evenly spread in the USofA. So while some of us are less free now, others have seen a net increase in their freedoms.

    Anyway, from the summary:

    Naam also explains that the technological advances allowing the bulk collection of personal data also provide us with cheap and easy means to fight government overreach.

    He might want to look up Snowden and Manning.

    You can "fight" but it is more likely that you will end up in jail than anyone doing the spying on behalf of the government will.

  16. The general trend is not towards freedom by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My grandfather was able to do many things that I cannot. My father was able to do less than him but still more than me. I have already gotten to do things that my kids won't be able to. Need examples, try how many places you can go hunting / fishing / hiking / off roading / target shooting / camping. You can't even have campfires at developed sites in some areas. Consider what firework options you have, they have probably gone down. Granted I live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, so many of you will have more options than I do. Even so, the trend that I've observed is that options (another way of looking at Freedom) are going down. I don't see an end in sight either.

    1. Re:The general trend is not towards freedom by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I've got mixed feelings about that.
      One of my relatives who played with relatively low powered fireworks once is missing a couple of fingers. Another who played with a lot of stuff up to and including cordite (the nearby army base had poor security) in his early teens had no damage apart from a reputation for being "that kid" who blew things up.
      I've probably still got mixed feeling because in Australia it's still the situation where some people found with explosives near a major dam upstream from a major city were charged under illegal fishing laws instead of "omg terrorism!!!" laws. The police got to use their discretion. There are people that want us to go to the cottonwool wrapped extremes but it hasn't happened yet.
      An American visitor said one thing he liked about Australia is that he could go to a park and there would be a sign with the name of the park and nothing else - no long list of stuff you can't do in the park. Of course that has started changing. I can no longer legally camp in one of my favourite spots even though it is in publicly owned land around 10km from any road, and there are now increasingly long lists of what you cannot do in many public parks.

    2. Re:The general trend is not towards freedom by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It appears that you are joining the wrong dots with a crayon instead of paying attention the the message that it is not a simple issue.

    3. Re:The general trend is not towards freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not life-threatening, or even life-enhancing freedoms. Also, you confuse freedom with lawful. You can go fish everywhere, you can build a fire everywhere. However, if everyone does exactly what they want to please themselves, nature and resources will dwindle. We're just too many people and need to learn to live with eachother. So we have laws to prevent people from doing things like that, but it's still *possible*.

      On the other side, I can decide to travel to Peru or Australia over the weekend and be back again for work the next week. We have *other* freedoms now, which also comes with *other* expenses, such as environmental pollution and mass consumption.

      Realistically, at one point, that too will have to stop.

    4. Re:The general trend is not towards freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will Progressives improve society if they can't change the rules for your ultimate benefit? You may not be able to see it now, but you'll be better off eventually.

    5. Re:The general trend is not towards freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australian are *not* cottonwool wrapped? What? That's not the Australia I have known. Australia led the world in pedohysteria and Think of The Children in general.

  17. But that's wrong, you nitwit. by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA is disinformation or ignorance, do not believe the message therein.

    You are only as free as they let you be. The news is not the news. You are slaves to corporations that farm you. Your wars are fought to privatize economies. Since secrets were allowed in government they have been actively against all activism, because activism the only thing that affects change, your votes do not matter, the political system is rigged. Maintaining the social, economic, and political status quo, even against the will of the people, is what "national security" means. They don't have to fake disasters, they can craft legislation and posture politically so that when one comes along they can turn a blind eye if need be. Each disaster makes the people more powerless, increasing the wealth gap. This is disaster capitalism, and it is working great even in communist nations.

    With unemployment up, you are still spending too much time working: One can not truly fulfill their potential as humans without time to relax, enjoy life, create, and explore new opportunities. Your office jobs are pointless, replaceable either by computers or outsourcing to individuals with less cost of living, and we do so increasingly to ensure no job stability -- nearly everyone is a buggy whip maker one step of progress away from being an "unskilled" homeless person. The labor jobs largely have no unions so their working conditions suffer. In both blue and white collar cases people are given no time to seek new avenues of employ, or even manage their finances (you think bankers hours aren't such for a reason? Information disparity is the source of all evil). With inflation out-pacing pay, money in savings is diminished so that people can not safely leave employ -- The better to entrap and farm you with my dear. If you had a little more time you'd have leverage at your disposal to find better work or keep a plan B so that you can bargain for better pay and working conditions. Each disaster allows the system to ratchet your belts a bit tighter, more reliance, less time to be human. This is why banks are not held accountable, and are rather encouraged to destroy markets. How could anyone benefit from economic disaster and the mayhem it brings? Humans will do whatever it takes to survive, and the unscathed upper echelon will capitalize on this.

    What is worse than 1984 is having it worse while fools like the article writer think it's not as bad. Classic ignorance. An example of thought control at its finest. When I became an adult I looked upon your world as though an alien from a distant planet -- I managed to forget all the programming about what "the real world" is, and question everything as a scientist would. The most telling and alarming is your willful resistance to application of the scientific method to governance and worklife. It's fucking disgusting. No engineer or scientist would agree to be ruled thus.

    The answer is to modularize and decentralize your production of necessary resources, but no one wants to hear that... Moronic NIMBYs, you deserve what you get for your apathetic ignorance and inaction. The government has codified resistance to sustainable coexistence. That's why farmers can't grow excessive crops, even for personal use, and no city can survive on its own. Hell, school kids aren't even taught basic technologies like how to start a cooking fire, swim, sew, butcher, or bake -- Not survival

    1. Re:But that's wrong, you nitwit. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The most telling and alarming is your willful resistance to application of the scientific method to governance and worklife.

      Maybe it's because you're using the wrong tool for the job? Scientific method works nice when understanding is the highest goal. When instead, it's some other agenda, then it's going to fail hard. And you just mentioned two of the areas where such sufficiently large agenda exist.

    2. Re:But that's wrong, you nitwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoy your posts Vortex, please come to soylentnews.org so that I may continue reading them.

    3. Re:But that's wrong, you nitwit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's because you're using the wrong tool for the job?

      It is not the "wrong tool" if what you seek is something that is closest to the truth, which we should be. If we even tried to follow the scientific method, the TSA wouldn't exist, the NSA spying wouldn't exist, and numerous other garbage that politicians force down our throats based on no evidence whatsoever wouldn't exist.

      Sounds better to me.

    4. Re:But that's wrong, you nitwit. by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is not the "wrong tool" if what you seek is something that is closest to the truth

      And there we go. We don't seek something "closest to the truth" in the political and business arenas. They have other purposes, other constraints, and embedded conflicts of interest that preclude the scientific method being successful.

  18. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are absolutely right. The more important question to ask, would we be as free without the works of people like Huxley and Orwell?

  19. Not in America by srichard25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Indeed, the average person on Earth is more free today, in 2014, than he or she would have been in the actual year 1984"

    Maybe the average person on Earth is more free today, but the average American is most definitely NOT more free today than they were in 1984. Try to buy a large soda in New York. Try to smoke just about anywhere indoors. Try to board a plane with a pocket knife, or even just a soda. 20 year old adults can serve in the Marines, but can't buy a drink.

    1. Re:Not in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today I walked a trail in Wheat Ridge, CO and on my way back noticed a sign that stated the parks and open spaces are smoke free. For the environment and the health of the residents, were the reasons given. Pure fucking hypocrisy and a cash grab, as the park follows along I-70 into Denver; you can taste the exhaust from the vehicles.

    2. Re:Not in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that the soft drink law didn't pass, right? And that smoking releases second hand smoke, which can cause serious respiratory problems for non-smokers forced to inhale it? That's like complaining "I can't burn tires in the office even though I like the smell." Your pocketknife can be placed in checked baggage - you might as well complain that you're not allowed to bring bombs on airplanes. I agree that the drinking age is silly, but most reasonable NCOs will just try to make sure their soldiers under 21 drink in a safe place rather than preventing them from drinking completely.

      On the other hand, it's easier than ever to get your voice heard. Your lifestyle is less likely to be judged. Soft drugs are being decriminalized and legalized.

      In other words, your ability to harm others has fallen while your freedom of action in non-hazardous areas is much greater.

    3. Re:Not in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Try to smoke just about anywhere indoors.

      One freedom that I and many, many others are perfectly delighted for people to lose. If that's the kind of loss of freedom that we're headed towards, bring it on!

    4. Re:Not in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Try to buy a large soda in New York"

      Oh the horror. BTW, 20 oz is "large".

    5. Re:Not in America by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Your pocketknife can be placed in checked baggage - you might as well complain that you're not allowed to bring bombs on airplanes.

      Wow. So, then, I take it that you support government thugs harassing people at airports? If so, you despise freedom.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  20. Stop asking for more state by fredprado · · Score: 1

    The first step is to stop asking for more state and pretending that the government is a solution to control corporations, banks and any other "evil" out there.

    1. Re:Stop asking for more state by JohnNemesh · · Score: 1

      You either have the governments control the corporations, or the corporations will control the government! There really isn't a middle ground here! And if you don't think the banks are "evil", after they DESTROYED millions of people's retirement accounts, put millions out on the street with bogus foreclosures, and then took BILLIONS from the TAXPAYERS and then paid their executive 7 figure bonuses, I don't know what to tell you...you are either blind or willfully ignorant, and I am not sure which is worse!

    2. Re:Stop asking for more state by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure you believe that, but the truth is that the corporations always control governments and never the other way around, and the rule is: the bigger the government the more powerful are the corporations.. There isn't a non totalitarian country in the world where this statement is false, and in totalitarian countries the government is the biggest corporation of all, and behaves just like so.

      Finally whatever banks and corporations have done of evil in this world, governments have done worse, trust me.

  21. Re:Economics is the most backwards 'science" ever by JohnNemesh · · Score: 2

    Sure, and the Polar Vortex that put the entire US in a deep freeze this winter was all a conspiracy! So is the record drought in the Southwest! FOOL! WAKE UP!

  22. Et tu, Bruce? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Schneier in booth with RSA: https://www.schneier.com/

  23. Recursion by x0ra · · Score: 1

    I guess this /. news is in itself sci-fi !

  24. time delay by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    The internet is an inherently chaotic system with most of the computing power on the edges and very weak central controls. This is by design because it creates a stable, robust network. Individuals (first from universities) swarmed the internet in an explosion of creativity. They were followed by corporations as the net was opened to commercial activity. Government was late to the game and is only now coming to grips with how to use the internet for monitoring citizens.

    As individuals moved online, there was certainly an increase in freedom to communicate. But now that "total information awareness " is upon us, we are less free. And in a way that's more dangerous than it was in 1984 because, at least until very recently, we did not know how limited our freedom was.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  25. Re:Economics is the most backwards 'science" ever by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I don't have to wake up. It's too bloody hot to sleep in Australia.

  26. Surveillance != freedom loss by Immerman · · Score: 1

    So wait - because we haven't yet started losing a lot of obvious freedoms yet we shouldn't be worried about an ever-more-invasive surveillance state? That seems disingenuous. It'd be a pretty stupid tyrant who tipped his hand before he was sure he could squash any opposition, especially if the tyrant in question is an association of powerful individuals who prefer to remain as anonymous as possible. Can you name the 100 most powerful people in the world? I bet you very few of them have ever intentionally appeared on television.

    Even making the extremely generous assumption that the existing surveillance infrastructure is completely benign we'd be wise to listen to the old adage that power corrupts. Notice the order there - first comes the power, and only later the corruption. Create a powerful institution capable of concentrating immense power, and it's only a matter of time before corrupt individuals manage to maneuver themselves into a position where they can exploit it.

    Besides which I would contest that we haven't lost a lot of freedoms. Once upon a time the US government wasn't capable of legally "disappearing" people in the middle of the night - now all they have to do is label you a terrorist and they can do just that. And I'm guessing pretty much anyone that might effectively threaten the status quo can pretty easily be labeled a terrorist. I'd say that's a pretty major freedom loss right there, even if it hasn't yet been horribly abused. (and how would we know?)

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  27. Information is power by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The simple problem is that information is power. The typical psychopath who runs for political office or backstabs their way into top civil servant positions know this in their very cores. They want this power and they don't want us to have this power. This is why freedom of information requests can be the end of governments and many civil servants jobs and this is why they do their damnedest to fight them or exempt data from them.

    A great example of this would be when the receipts for UK ministers got leaked that it instantly resulted in political career loss, criminal charges, and probably helped with a change in government. Obviously this was powerful data that when leaked resulted in a massive positive for society. Yet the government claims that this data is dangerous to have public; yet they can't show any damage that came from the one time it was made public. Plus the only claim with any real basis (account numbers and potentially credit card info) is nonsense as those could be blacked out with little loss to the public. But there has been no move to make this data public and an investigation into who leaked the data. If they did catch the person I suspect that they would end up facing penalties greater than those who were caught stealing from the government.

    My personal view is that nothing that government does should be kept secret with the single exception of personal medical records. That basically if you work for or interact with the government that it should be 100% open. Some records could be sealed for a year or so such as undercover operations but that should require a special judge to approve and even then should have a time limit.

    I see this as no different than if I owned a company and one of my employees told me that I couldn't see a contract they were negotiating for my company. If any employee said no to any information request I made then I would say, "No problem sorry to bother you." And then with security I would have them thrown out of the office while IT changed every password they might know and a forensic investigator would be pouring over their records before the day was over. Plus I would criminally charge them with the slightest wrong doing found. Whereas if an employee came to me saying they screwed up I would be quite forgiving and work with them through the problem.

    Keeping things in the light is always the best policy. But too many government officials seem to think that we can't handle the truth. The reality is that the violent reaction they get when leaks do happen is that we are usually more annoyed with the coverup than the actual events. Benghazi would be perfect: it was layers of lying that brought about those events, events in a violent country where violence should be expected, and then the cover-up after. Few people would have been surprised that strange things happened in Libya, so covering them up was just stupid.

    So no, this whole government getting more information is a terrible terrible thing. These people have long proven themselves to be 100% untrustworthy and quite hostile to our wellbeing. What has kept them from doing their worst was a combination of their having bad information combined with leaks that gave us great information. But now they can look at any "dissident" who by definition will be anyone questioning their behavior including normal political opposition, and not only figure out their entire network of supporters but as any mathematician will tell you with a network is that there are a few key nodes. Thus they will be able to effectively destroy any opposition not through routing out every little dissident but by highly selective targeting of very few people causing the network to disintegrate. To use the American revolution as an example I suspect that the British would have loved to find the few financially key supporters and throw them into the Boston harbor. If they had the lists of supporters that we now know as founding fathers the revolution could have been ended with one afternoon of hangings. And I am talking pre-teaparty; by reading their correspondence they could have seen trouble brewing, and with a few trumped up charges kept the ink off the declaration of independence.

  28. Options by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    As the public and press after the Snowden whistleblowing finally wakes up to been activly tracked and logged over decades what can be done?
    Popular culture sort of understood aspects of Echelon back in the 1980-90's via books and magazines, early internet use. The wider public where fooled by notions of legal protections, enshrined domestic law, population size, private vs public, computing power to store/sort vast data sets, brand and shareholders vs bad PR, powerful private sector crypto and other wonderful day dreams.
    Understand the motives, funding, political origins and needs for vast illegal generational surveillance at the domestic level:
    Operation_CHAOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
    COINTELPRO (Counter INTELligence PROgrams)
    Main Core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
    PATCON (Patriot Conspiracy)
    Options:
    If your in the press or like to work with the press/blogs do so fully, openly, in plain text and in much detail as you can. Fill your emails, web 2.0 with past stories, names, events, press contacts, terms.
    Attend any and all local free speech events and make sure you drive so your license plate can be noted.
    Smile for the on site cameras and CCTV. Carry you cell phone so it can be logged and arrive early, stay to the last speech, interview people, show your photo ID when asked ;)
    Ensure your date of birth and details are recored fully and are correct when requested.
    Your now in the system but still enjoying your limited freedom to speak, work with the press, meet with other people in public, listen to their insights and experiences in public.
    This will ensure good stories make it to the wider public vs the sock puppets pushing for more costly color of law limits on all of your freedoms.
    Option 2
    Buy a typewriter, use a photocopier, create a classic paper file system and only talk to the press face to face.
    The East German and Polish experience in the 1980's show option 1 be very good at working in a country under constant surveillance with many interesting informants.
    The state has to watch you work with the press or tell you to stop. Telling you to stop is picked up by the wider press and gets more people interested...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  29. I have a typewriter by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    I'm considered by my friends as the most tech savvy guy around, but I use my good old Halda typewriter to type my blog & memoirs. It doesn't get much safer than than.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:I have a typewriter by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Much cash has gone into domestic signals intelligence, electronic intelligence (traffic analysis). Every POTS phone call account, cell phone use, colorful web 2.0 experience, email can be stored for later examination.
      If your memoirs require gov clearance recall Operation Dark Heart (a 2010 memoir by U.S. Army intelligence officer)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:I have a typewriter by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If you're using a typewriter, it's not a blog. Perhaps you meant "diary" or "journal".

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  30. Re:Surveillance states exists as part of the probl by dbIII · · Score: 1

    "Mass hysteria" as used by people in governments is often code for "what if the public find out I'm a crook and string me up for my crimes?". Outside of the odd stampede during fires etc the real thing almost never happens.

  31. Big freedoms, small freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's harder to get a large soda or smoke a cigarette, but it's easier to get married to someone you love. It's easier to get equal pay as a minority.

    There are some smaller freedoms that have been reduced, but there are also major freedoms that have been increased.

  32. Some truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... no we can't. Or we won't, rather.

  33. The issue is Culture, not Technology by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    Right now, the Technology we have is changing the world. The thing is, is that there are still large sloths of the US Population that still has a White Supremacist, or Christian Supremacist Medieval of the world we live in. To these people freedom and egalitarian thinking is the enemy. "The other populations" must be kept 'under control' The technology will be abused to whatever means possible to control what are seen as a domestic enemy population to uphold traditions of ancestors, and this can get as finite and grandular as Parents vs. Their Children.

  34. Technology leads, government follows by hessian · · Score: 1

    We now have two salient facts about our technology:

    (a) A constant flow of communication

    (b) The ability to monitor it

    Someone will do this. It's inevitable that government will want to in order to keep an eye on true threats. Sort of like Echelon, but domestically, as our threats are now domestic more than foreign.

  35. The arc of history has bent towards more freedom. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    Unless of course you want to send an email and feel confident that it's confidential.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  36. 1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article here. by strstr · · Score: 1

    I give you the unheard of Dr. Robert Duncan, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice surveillance system architect.

    1976, he says TAMI / Thought Amplifying and Mind Interface was deployed in all radar systems based on Robert Malech's 1974 patent, 3,951,134, Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves.

    Democracy was destroyed, and today thousands of people have been victimized by the government with psychic attacks and directed energy weapon abuse. They monitor everyones brainwaves remotely, to the tune of 1.4 terabytes per second, and store our memories in their computer systems. Video, audio, emotions, dreams, and all are monitored. This isn't for criminal justice or peace either, they hate us and are controlling and sabotaging society and they can set up, rape, injure, murder, and get away with any covert abuse they want.

    Space capability is also being used to target us during black operations, according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice.. as he had done to many individuals and blew the whistle on in 2005.

    Details, video, patents, books, interviews of Dr. Duncan's on and other NSA issues at: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

    The fact is, the public still has not even picked up on the truth of the US governments surveillance programs and continues to live in ignorant bliss.

    The Matrix Deciphered, Dr. Robert Duncan's ebook PDF download excerpts:

    Here is secret #1 that has been suppressed by the forces of ignorance in the government. There was a patent that I will keep referring to throughout this book because of the importance of the work. It is published in the appendix. In 1974, Robert Malech, an employee of Dorn & Margolin Inc., a major defense subcontractor in radar design now owned by EDO Corporation an even larger all defense contractor in electronic warfare, invented a fairly simple radar device that could read whole brain electrical activity at a large distance . It has the major advantages of no wires and full brain electrical activity analysis, not just points on the skull surface. He discovered and perfected a way to use some simple electromagnetic oscillations anywhere from 100Mhz to 40 Ghz to read brainwaves by "illuminating" the brain and its electrical conductance then reading the return signal. The imaging method observes the changes of frequency resonances, amplitude, and phase which represent the states of neuron depolarization throughout the brain.

    Secret #2. But more profoundly, he discovered that he could influence brain waves if precisely timed with a return training signal. He had no idea that at this moment in history, he had accidentally destroyed democracy as we envision it to be. The military and surveillance community immediately picked up on the patent and within two years had reprogrammed their communications and surveillance satellites and terrestrial phased arrays with the new concepts. The rapid deployment of this technology occurred because it only required software changes in already existing radar, imaging, and communications' terrestrial dishes and satellites. Many additional spy satellites have been launched since to bolster the system. So in 1976, on the bicentennial of this great nation, a system called TAMI was born. TAMI is an acronym for "Thought Amplifier and Mind Interface". A more invasive "Big Brother" technology came about before George Orwell's prediction of 1984.

    Secret #3. Stealth RADAR techniques were first recorded by observing the Russian bombardment of the U.S. embassy in Moscow with microwaves. Using high powered steered phased arrays and focused directed energy from two sources next to each other, one can create a nearly undetectable "scalar" wave, or destructive interference at the point of interest. With just a minor energy interaction, the interfering beams bounce back with strong signal to noise ratio to be resolved at the sources again. This allows for any imaging

  37. Good try, NSA by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

    If the government controls the media, like in some certain countries, what's to stop them from making it seem like their citizens are oh-so happy and not totally oppressed? Keep in mind media control is still very powerful, and there are still people who think the Onion is a(n) legitimate/accurate news source.

    1. Re:Good try, NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government controls the media, like in some certain countries, what's to stop them from making it seem like their citizens are oh-so happy and not totally oppressed?
      Keep in mind media control is still very powerful, and there are still people who think the Onion is a(n) legitimate/accurate news source.

      It's worse than that Jim. CORPORATIONS control both media and government.

  38. Fuck yeah I can! by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    "Can you name the 100 most powerful people in the world? I bet you very few of them have ever intentionally appeared on television."

    Fuck yeah I can! And they have all been on TV.

    1) Obama
    2) Santa Claus
    3) Putin
    4) Chinese dude that runs China, what's his face.
    5) Gandalf
    6) Bill Gates

    What do you mean the powerful people don't want to be on TV. That doesn't even make any sense. Tell former Mayor Bloomberg or Ted Turner that powerful people don't want to be on TV. You make no sense, man.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Fuck yeah I can! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Politicians want to be on TV, but if we all agree they sell out then who, exactly, do you suppose they are selling out *to*? The corporations? Okay, but those are ultimately controlled by the stockholders, a few hundred of which collectively have controlling interest in every major corporation on Earth. Could you name those people?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  39. wait... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re the "list above is nonsense", try reading this cold
    Timeline of United States military operations 1980–1989
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:wait... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Sorry A, but that still isn't a list of terrorist attacks other than passing reference to the Libyan sponsored German disco bombing that killed two U.S. soldiers.

      --
      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
    2. Re:wait... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That is a matter of perspective.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:wait... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perspective matters for some things, but not everything if words actually have meaning.

      --
      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
    4. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful fjord, you're starting to sound like someone...

    5. Re:wait... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Ann Althouse? I'm honored.

      --
      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
  40. Re care by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The facial recognition systems track your face, your passengers face, another camera for you license plate number and then details get shared with a few gov and possibly private sector databases.
    The main issue will be that your "home and work and shopping" driving options might be past a protest without a protest permit or parade permit and outside a free speech zone.
    You would then be of interest. Is your state getting federal funds for national crime issues? Expect more tracking equipment.
    ACLU: 2/3 of US population lives in “Constitution-free” zone
    http://arstechnica.com/securit...
    Expect more random Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams too.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... too :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  41. Re record which books you have borrowed by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The US did have a case on tracking patron records from a library. The National Security Letter aspect was taken to court and then dropped once in open court.
    Some details at:
    Librarians' NSL Challenge
    https://www.aclu.org/national-...
    Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them (03.15.13)
    http://www.wired.com/threatlev...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  42. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great!
    It's even better than Internet conspiracy articles on the "greys" and their nefarious plans for the inhabitants of Earth.
    All I can say is "give us more ...!"

  43. Tell that to West Virginia by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just don't drink the water while you're doing it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  44. Money == Freedom by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Real Freedom is economic security. That's why the 1% have been relentlessly attacking your economic security for 30 years. Declining wages, relentless attacks on Unions, starve the beast politics and boom/busts where they buy up property on the cheap because they're the only ones with any money left after the bust. They're all tools to make you poor so you'll do what they say.

    Here, let This guy explain it. He's much better than I am.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      So the problem is that labor is no longer as scarce as it was thirty or more years ago. I'd rather adapt to the reality rather than complain uselessly about it.

      Sure, there's a bunch of people who get most of their wealth from capital instead of labor. They did quite well. But if you actually managed to take them down, you wouldn't get paid any more.

    2. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      But if you actually managed to take them down, you wouldn't get paid any more.

      Sure you would. They would no longer have any influence to prevent it or other adaptations to the labor surplus that don't end up with the entire benefit landing in their pocket.

    3. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      They would no longer have any influence to prevent it or other adaptations to the labor surplus

      In other words, there would be even less demand for labor. Why don't you come up with ideas that don't make the problem worse?

    4. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      They have plenty of greed and while making a million isn't nearly as fun as making a billion, I';m guessing they won't be able to stand just sitting at the sidelines.

      I for one don't care to worship "the job givers", especially since they seem not to be giving very many jobs anymore. It's time to quit listening to Vaal.

    5. Re:Money == Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money is just one subset of freedom. The freedom to do what you want. Privacy is another.

      Surveilling people brings many more powerful ways to force / manipulate people than poverty does.

    6. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is an example of what I'm talking about. You're more concerned about "don't care to worship the 'job givers'" than whether there are jobs out to give. And you even note that your so-called "job givers" aren't giving many jobs in the developed world. Why should they, when they would have to deal with crap like your attitude and the corresponding political hassle it represents at the national level.

      My view is that so-called "job givers" or the employers are doing a big service for society by employing people. We should be assisting them, not kneecapping them. This is typical of the economic ignorance out there. It breaks societies and then lays the blame on convenient scapegoats. Where's the jobs coming from when you punish those who would provide them?

    7. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really can't wait to fall to your knees and kiss your new kings feet, can you?

      Based on evidence, the only thing you know about economics is "the rich guy is always right, all hail the rich guy!".

      Sorry, no. We all have to live within constraints for the good of society. If that isn't working for you, go find a sadist and be his submissive.

    8. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really can't wait to fall to your knees and kiss your new kings feet, can you?

      Nonsense. This sort of thing is something you have to work to achieve and maintain. The "new kings" or the "rich guys" don't magically come out of thin air. They come from functional societies. So do jobs. So does prosperity.

      Your obsession with sticking it to the employers comes at the cost of that society.

      Sorry, no. We all have to live within constraints for the good of society.

      Most constraints are harmful for society.

    9. Re:Money == Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "new kings" or the "rich guys" don't magically come out of thin air. They come from functional societies. So do jobs. So does prosperity.

      Actually, no, kings and rich guys don't come from functional societies.

      Tyrants (kings) have no place in a functional society. All men are created equal. Nobody is more fit to be king than any other, so nobody should ever become a king and enjoy the benefits of being a king.

      Rich guys also don't, because free market capitalism does not allow people to get rich. Note that by "rich" I mean being relatively more wealthy, not in absolute sense (if we measure in absolute sense, then almost everybody in the developed world is "rich" compared to 100 years ago, or even 10 years ago despite the economic downturn, we got more smart phones and fancy gadgets than before!)

      Free market capitalism prevents people from becoming rich mainly in two ways. First, competition will drive businesses to operate on razor sharp profit margins. So the "rich guy" business owner might make a billion dollars a year, but he also has to spend almost a billion dollars a year to maintain his business, and pay for his liabilities. So he doesn't actually bring home that much more money than anybody else, and doesn't get ahead that much if at all, and thus not really "rich"

      Second, free market capitalism will seek to create goods and services that people want. Whatever excess savings the "rich guy" brings home will be spent on those goods and service. The wealth of the "rich guy" ends up in other people's hands, so the "rich guy" becomes less rich, while the poor people who provided the goods and services become more rich. In the end, nobody is relatively richer, but everybody is absolutely richer.

      In short, a functional society would not have large wealth inequality. The fact that the US has all these new kings and rich guys that makes so much more than everybody else indicates that it is not a functional society.

    10. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      So anarchy then? I don't think Wall Street would have done very well in an anarchy.

    11. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      So anarchy then? I don't think Wall Street would have done very well in an anarchy.

      Sounds like you answered your question without any need for help from me.

      As to my comment about constraints - limits on my ability to pollute or harm others is a constraint. So is having to live on the road or in a slum because thugs burned my house down. So is being imprisoned in a gulag.

      I consider "constraints" like I do genetic mutations. Some are helpful, but most aren't. Merely stating that constraints are necessary for the "good of society" ignores this important bit of nuance.

    12. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      Tyrants (kings) have no place in a functional society.

      A typical "no true scotsman" fallacy. Most societies have gone through a strong man phase. It's not the best for a society, but it beats anarchy.

      Rich guys also don't, because free market capitalism does not allow people to get rich.

      Free market capitalism both provides mechanisms for getting rich and an absence of caps on how rich you can be. So it does allow and enables people to get rich. A good recent example is the guy who developed modern oil fracking. He picked up something like two billion dollars by doing that.

    13. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure you can figure out that by constraints I didn't mean random ones. I'm fairly sure you would favor a constraint that keeps me from placing a 20 foot high pile of dung next to your bedroom window, for example. Since you don't like the constraint that you have to live in a slum if thugs burn your house down, you WILL like the constraint that thugs aren't allowed to burn your house down.

    14. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure you can figure out that by constraints I didn't mean random ones.

      I know no such thing - even now.

      I'm fairly sure you would favor a constraint that keeps me from placing a 20 foot high pile of dung next to your bedroom window, for example.

      But what happens when that dung heap was there before I built my house? Constraints shouldn't exist just because they favor my interests.

    15. Re:Money == Freedom by sjames · · Score: 1

      So my trespass is OK as long as the property changes hands?

    16. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about trespass? That dung heap may be on someone else's property. Human interaction is far more complicated than merely bad guys being prevented from doing bad things to people by regulation.

    17. Re:Money == Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A typical "no true scotsman" fallacy. Most societies have gone through a strong man phase.

      You originally said "functional" societies, now you switched to "most" societies. If I was making a no true scotsman, it was merely a continuation of the one you started.

      Free market capitalism both provides mechanisms for getting rich and an absence of caps on how rich you can be.

      As I explained, that is absolute riches, not relative riches. In a free market, when one person becomes relatively richer, other people will make things to sell to him, goading him to part with his money. There is no cap in riches, but that applies to everybody. Almost everybody should be getting richer under a free market (coming tide lifts all boats), not just the few.

      A good recent example is the guy who developed modern oil fracking. He picked up something like two billion dollars by doing that.

      The big corporations who paid the inventor two billion wouldn't be so big and have two billion to pay the guy if the oil industry wasn't heavily regulated by government, which limited competition and allowed those corporations to grow so big.

      So this isn't a good, nor is it recent. This is example actually goes way back to around the time of the Civil War. Civil War itself is a result of federal and state governments disagreeing on the level of interference the govenrment can have on the market. Alas the bigger federal government won, and they decided to push for railroads (and pushed people to expand west which further increased demand for transportation). The war also created a lot of demand to Reconstruct the nation (read: government broke all the windows during the war, somebody has to fix it). That helped create railroad and steel tycoons and everybody else involved in rebuilding the nation. Rockefeller leveraged the rails and made S.O big.

      Now, had government stopped and let the free market adjust itself, S.O. would have faced competition naturally. Eventually, it would either become smaller, or other companies get bigger, and Rockefeller wouldn't be that much more richer than other people.

      But the government didn't stop. Government intervened and broke up S.O. But did that distribute the wealth more equally, like the leftists wanted? Nope. Rockefeller got RICHER, not poorer, from the break up, thanks to all his stocks in the broken up companies.

      The government doubled down and kept on intervening (the Federal Reserve, the New Deal, etc), so those oil companies became more and more entrenched, leading to those big companies who had two billion to pay that fracking inventor.

      The lesson here is that it is not free market that concentrated wealth to the few, but government intervention in the market.

    18. Re:Money == Freedom by khallow · · Score: 1

      The big corporations who paid the inventor two billion wouldn't be so big and have two billion to pay the guy if the oil industry wasn't heavily regulated by government, which limited competition and allowed those corporations to grow so big.

      Reading up on it some more, the inventor already owned a fair-sized oil company some of which he grew through outright government intervention (via real estate deals with large government contributions).

      But his profits from fracking came from the huge value of oil released by fracking, not from unusual concentration of oil industry resources via government interference.

  45. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Robert Duncan character seems to have all the earmarks of a misinformation agent.

    He has flaky credentials, flaky personal associations, flaky manner. He can't even write an email response without sounding 'off' and socially broken. He is very similar in manner to others who have gone on to embarrass and muddy the waters of their respective fields. The personality type seems to have a similar and noticeable flavor, I find, and I am always amazed that such damaged people are somehow able to write whole books with compelling content and which display evidence of well honed communication skills when clearly the author is barely functional.

    Anyway, there's a bit of exploration into who Robert Duncan is with some of his responses here: http://exposinginfragard.blogs...

    Typically, with these sorts, the subject matter they are presenting is based on a lot of mostly accurate and therefore valuable information, even including new insights nobody has heard before and which excite readers and thus polarize and move the public research of that subject forward in significant ways, -but in a manner controlled by the disinfo agency.

    The information is skewed on purpose and includes nuggets of outright falsehood designed to be found and ridiculed/dismissed by debunkers and skeptics at a later date. This makes it easy to discredit everything under the subject banner regardless of the general validity of similar sources trying to be genuinely objective, because the debunked author is so clearly broken and his/her work embarrassingly inaccurate. This is an informational tar ball approach to counter intelligence.

    The method seems to work. People with weak minds get confused and disturbed and/or offended, and afterwards tend to categorize everything not endowed with the aura of official approval in the, "Fake Moon Landing Tin Foil Crazy" file and thus remain docile followers of the "official story".

    ----

    Now, in terms of where I think the technology for mind control really is:

    I think individuals and regions can be affected by EM signals so that they are more likely to react with certain responses than not. Free will cannot be abridged per se, but most people have no concept of reality and thus when they react to artificially created states of anxiety or confusion or other impulses, tend to move only in the directions planned out for them. They think they're acting out of free will, but really, they just have their buttons pushed and their options for movement predetermined.

    I think that voices can be beamed directly into people's skulls from a distance using today's technology. Richard Sauder, an author who strikes me as being a great deal more genuine and nonflakey, described a bit about that.

    And depending on the originating source, I'd say that some 'people' can be almost entirely remote controlled. Like flesh bots, I suppose.

    Though, reading thoughts and imaging dreams and such...? I'd assume that might be possible at higher levels, but I'd be skeptical if human military structures are really there yet. Maybe some of them, depending on who they're working in association with, but that sounds like soul matrix manipulation of a sort, which I've never seen any evidence is within the grasp of human tech.

  46. Easy to tell by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    There is good regulation and there is bad regulation. Learn to recognize the difference.

    It's quite easy to tell - anything that can pass congress and the house is bad regulation.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Easy to tell by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to tell - anything that can pass congress and the house is bad regulation.

      Lately that's been absolutely true.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  47. Frank Zappa said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't happen here...
    No, it can't happen heeeerrrreee....

  48. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking to yourself, Todd?

    What you SHOULD be doing is *NOT* masturbating in public.

    So Todd, how's the court case going?

  49. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    Dr. Robert Duncan has the most expensive education money can buy. He holds degrees from Harvard and Darthmouth universities among others. His credentials are well established and he's the only government scientist actually talking about this, and telling the truth. And he worked on and designed these systems.

    Additionally, his book covers everything, with insight thats amazing, framing the issue almost perfectly. The only issue is he wrote it from the perspective that a TI was writing the book, but in a way, we are all TIs so it makes sense.

    From : http://www.coasttocoastam.com/...

    Robert Duncan
    Biography:
    Dr. Robert Duncan holds multiple degrees from Harvard University and Dartmouth College amongst others. He has had the most expensive American education money can buy. He is an investigator, author, and soon be movie producer on the topics of directed energy, neurological weapons, psychological, and information warfare. His movie is called "The Enemy Within - Psychic Warfare". A book he is co-authoring will be out in a few months called "Hacking the Human Mind".

    Dr. Duncan has worked as a business and information technology consultant to the Fortune 500. He has worked for companies like Oracle Corporation, BEA systems, HP, BBN, and as a professor at a college. For the department of defense he has written the artificial intelligence code to track the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet with passive and active acoustical arrays and has been to a couple secret NATA Navy underground bases in Europe.

    It took this guy a few years to get his book out, ultimately titled The Matrix Deciphered. Then came Project Soul Catcher which as a published book is probably his best..

    He has appeared on a multitude of various radio and talk shows about this.

  50. We are more free sexually but less other ways by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Don't see a lot of talk about the thousands dead in the OVER TEN YEAR long war in the middle east do you?

    This is the kind of things the Smothers Brothers said that made the president of the united states call the president of CBS at 3am too tell him to shut them up.

    But you can have sex just about anyway you want as long as the partners are of age.

    Drugs and religion are fine too.

    Just don't bother the powers that be where it really matters to them. If you do that, you'll be unemployed (freedom of speech protects you from the government- not from being fired by your company because it doesn't like what you said- or one of its business partners doesn't like what you said).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  51. It's acutally not as bad...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as bad as the absolute worst predictions of un-ending facism thought it would be? Government shills should go kill themselves.

  52. Say... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    We Can Avoid a Surveillance State Dystopia

    Avoid it? We're in it. The question is can we get out of it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  53. Finding the max evil max cash flow saddle point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What freedom we have I don't think of as a three dimensional object enclosed within another three dimensional object.

    Instead, freedom is some space being filled with an increasingly elaborate serpenski gasket. We are still in an expansion phase where the expansion of laws and convictions is still a growth activity. The social justification for more punishment prevails. The author of TFA has a very benign assessment of the justice enterprise.

    Considering America since the end of WWII. There has been a parade of threats, fears and conflicts. Each one of these ideas, perceptions or facts has triggered a new round of military or domestic spending. Winston Churchill polarized the world with the phrase "Iron Curtain" in a speech right after WWII. A few years later, a Russian H-bomb explosion and a Sputnik launch set off an arms race and a wave of security anxiety that still operates. Domestically, early news reports about crack cocaine user behavior was parlayed by Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah and others into extremely long and unforgiving prison terms. The huge prison time value has resulted in lots of expenditures for police, prosecutors, prison guards and expenditures for buildings and equipment. Smothered underneath all this expenditure is a person not all that different from you and me. I lived near Baltimore once and the getter on Baltimore Pike looked at me and I felt a chill, he could have been my son.

    Another way in which America has been propelled forward is the collapse of theories of justice. Instead of healing, forgiveness, education, employment or civil assistance the actual innovations in our justice system boil down to a greater variety of punitive punishments, a search for prison funding schemes that do not display visible capital expenditure costs to the voters, a quest for culturally pleasing prosecution stories ( like imprisonment of a celebrity home decorating publisher), and new and inflexible ways of damaging a person for life: Crushing fines. Loss of voting privilege. Lifetime registration as a sexual predator. There is a professional psychological establishment ready to support every district attorney with powerful medical sounding diagnoses to ensure every disturbed young person who shows up at school with a gun is labeled in a way to convince the public the kid is really bad.

    I suggest that every family in America now has a felon within three steps away from you on the family tree.

    Consider that we have a domestic government activity of prisons, courts, prosecutors and police. Outside of the country, the American military or paramilitary is described as being active in many countries, still "fighting terrorism". Both are consumers of government income (what we pay in taxes) and both enterprises are operating in expansion mode where the expenditures of these organizations is not yet perceived to be greater than the economic damage wrought on the families of the imprisoned or on the drone targets.

  54. Hello NSA GCHQ by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 1

    Social manipulation newspeak. Media control propaganda. Random assassination of entire families using drones. Imprisoning anybody indefinitely without trial and without good reason at any time. We live in very dangerous times when one political party is the same as the other just with different names and both defying the laws that make a society a free society a democracy. If a government was to kill people randomly what would such a government be called? If a government tortured people randomly what would such a government be called? If they tried to monitor everything you do and would lock you up in prison indefinitely without trial because they don’t like what you are saying what would such a government be called? When a government stops working for the people what would such a government be called? In 2014 will they kill you? How government works: In the U.K, the Prime Minister leads the government with the support of the Cabinet and ministers. You can find out who runs government and how government is run, as well as learning about the history of government. The Prime Minister is head of the U.K. government. He is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. He: oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies appoints members of the government is the principal government figure in the House of Commons The Prime Minister is David Cameron MP and he is based at Number 10 Downing Street in London. More about the Prime Minister’s Office: http://child-porn-hacking-and-...

  55. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    You don't require a university degree to be a nutjob, and having such a degree is no proof against being a nutjob.

    Duncan is a nutjob who (nevertheless!) happens to hold degrees from Harvard and Dartmouth.

    Put another way, Duncan has degrees from Harvard and Dartmouth, and is (nevertheless!) a nutjob.

    Are we done now?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  56. We Can Avoid a Surveillance State Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude.. :>

  57. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    You are retarded sir. Because the issue of directed energy exists, and we know it is true.

    Duncan also worked on several projects that were part of a global surveillance system, including using satellites to track heart rate, breathe, and license plates from space.

    Nobody actually calls this guy a nutjob that I know of and he's highly respected.. I personally think you would have to be a government agent to hate this guy or want to discredit him. Basically you would want to murder him for trying to expose the abuse you committed, if you were a US government agent.

    The website posted before is actually a site set up to defame those in the TI community. Duncan is targeted by it (with all false claims), as is Derrick Robinson. They claim Derrick of Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance even works for the NSA, a highly illogical and blanant lie. The site is run by retards ...

    Dr. Judy Wood is another PHD scientist who has broken the story on directed-energy. This stuff does sound crazy to the public until they see the evidence, which is in her book Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed-Free Energy on 9/11. Essentially the buildings were dustified and turned to dust by someone with a massive directed energy weapon, .. I read her book and that is what the evidence proves. You can also watch the 2 hour movie on http://www.drjudywood.com/ she is the only person who has ever done a forensic investigation into the World Trade Centers collapse.

    Judy Wood is one who even believes this stuff is being used for mind control..

  58. The illusion of freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have illusory freedom if the "free" will we exhibit has been shaped by corporate ideology and values. Our minds are monitored and shaped by an ever refining effort to capitalize on our decisions. And those same techniques are used by nations to shape public opinion for policies that may or may not be to our collective benefit.

  59. maybe by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Ghostery
    VPN
    Delete cookies on exit
    Telegram not Facebook
    Don't play angry-birds!!

    Join site(s) like 38 Degrees, Avaaz even with the god-awful tories in power, 38 Degrees have made a substantial difference many times.

    Donate to EFF, UCL, etc.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ghostery may or may not block trackers, but it is essentially data gathering for the ad industry who fund it.

  60. Implication need not be made. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Among intelligent people it's well understood that Socialism is a MUCH better economic system than Capitalism; it's one of those basic truths that even children come to figure out on their own because it's so obvious (until they get brainwashed by the unnatural culture that created Capitalism to begin with). The problem is GETTING there. Entrenched interests have spent LOTS of money influencing mentally incompetent and immoral people to cheerlead for them, they successfully teach people that 1 + 1 = 3; and the last thing they want to do is lose all their power by having a non-ignorant population..

  61. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Retarded"?

    Like some nut job from Springfield, Oregon who thinks the NSA beans signals into his head that make him masturbate in public parks ? Hows the court case going? Been arrested again recently ?

    That kind of "retarded"?

  62. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bother sparring with Todd Giffen, it's not just my opinion that he's "certifiable", he spends a lot of time at Oregon's Funny Farm in Salem. These days, he believes that the NSA beams signals into his head that force him to masturbate in public parks around the Eugene / Springfield area. How's the court case going, Todd?

  63. Not as bad as...a book? by Stolzy · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight. You're saying that because the current surveillance which is happening isn't as bad as a book, a work of fiction, it's really not that bad?

    Maybe you should stop posting fiction to Slashdot, slashdot.

    /Stolzy

  64. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    you are irreverent shit troll man. I think you basically work for the government and help them cover shit up. lol.

  65. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orwell's 1984 is a far better book to describe what is happening today.

  66. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are irreverent shit troll man. I think you basically work for the government and help them cover shit up. lol.

    Such a coherent communicator!

    Go back you your public masturbation project. It's "performance art", right?

  67. Bullshit by cshark · · Score: 2

    This is an outright, prima-face lie, based on nothing.
    Why is this even on the Slashdot home page? Are we dedicated to spreading liberal and progressive propaganda now?

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  68. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    do you want to talk or something? join my server. tell me who you are.

    I know you want to reprogram me but come on. lets put your trolls towards more fruitful ventures, like fighting Obama, or something.

    then again, maybe you're like the bitch FBI from COINTELPRO, spying on people, sending them letters to try to get them to commit suicide or something?

    I am hoping you're a nice hacker who wants to play or something, or someone important, rather than just a mindless group of niggers. either way, come on in, links on the front page of my site or irc.oregonstatehospital.net SSL 6697. the servers secure either through web or mIRC/XChat/AndChat/Whatever...

  69. Re:Surveillance states exists as part of the probl by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

    "what if the public find out I'm a crook and string me up for my crimes?"

    *stamp* "TOP SECRET"

    So, problem solved.

    --
    How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  70. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Just WOW. "Mindless group of niggers"? Psychotic and racist. Maybe you should move to Idaho?

    I bet you are a frequent caller to Art Bell's fantasy show...

    Take your meds, Todd.

  71. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    Fuck you. Lmfao.

    I want move to Russia or Sweden.. fuck the USA.

  72. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want move to Russia or Sweden...

    Neither Russia or Sweden accept destitute perverts...

  73. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    Then again I don't want to go to either.. and I just want to see the USA nuked.

    I view the whole world as a giant surveillance state, I will be targeted and turned to shit wherever I go.

  74. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You DEFILE yourself by posting at Slashdot. WHY do you do it when YOU KNOW Slashdot is owned by bib-business=-NSA?

    ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

    ***LEAVE*** Slashdot. They are tracking you.

  75. "More free"..perhaps, but not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose one could argue we are "more free" in many ways, but I would argue that we also have far less privacy - and as a result, should be far more fearful of a government utilizing information about our private lives in malicious ways. That is all.

  76. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States will not miss a DOUCH BAG such as yourself!

  77. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol. I get plenty of +4 +5 modded posts man. I am taking it easy right now, but when this happens I also make sure that I have a place in history thanks to Slashdot's moderation and anti-censorship policies.

    I will keep posting here, and at times sucking in 200/300 click throughs a month. lol.

  78. Re:1984 happened in 1976... ignorant /. article he by strstr · · Score: 1

    Here's what else I know about the NSA. These douche fuckers are everywhere. Every square inch of America, and the world is being watched, and is in their control.

    No information is safe. Our computers are not safe. Our cellphones are not safe.

    They are watching me even when I try to hide, with long-range satellites and radar systems, like they are everyone. They are able to read my brainwaves and tap into anything I know, or others know. They see what I see, and others see.

    You cannot escape these douches, and you cannot lie or keep a secret. You cannot secure yourself, or your content or your possessions.

    retarded fucks - they are tracking each of you as well, and you have only ever had the illusion of privacy or free will.
    Also, they do not believe in the same principles of justice and liberty; that is but an illusion they use to control the public. that is what the masses believe in, but they believe in complete and total world domination, including of their own people.

    The US government is a fucking massive empire.... and the public lives in their matrix, and they can literally control us just like in the movie the matrix. the dod/etc has untold fucking powers that you don't realize because of your lack of imagination.

  79. you're thinking too small. by dlt074 · · Score: 1

    while some injustices and arbitrary limitations of certain minority groups have been undone, giving the illusion of more "freedom". individual liberty has gone so far backwards as to make it impossible for a person of any sex, or race to live free with out paying the government for the pleasure. we in fact have become property of the state.

    don't believe me? attempt to feed your family or just yourself without having to pay the government, be it via a hunting fishing tax, a tax on your income or sales of any goods you may manufacture. live off the land? you have to pay property tax on that. live on "public" land? in what fantasy world? and even then, there's probably a "use tax" but don't get caught harvesting anything.

    you only keep your "freedom" as long as you pay the vig to the man. stop paying and you'll quickly be on the wrong end of a man with a gun. you'll then pay up or be shipped off to a prison.

    choosing to not pay is an option, but you are then labeled a criminal and are not allowed to play in the walled garden with the other inmates... i mean citizens.

    our masters are very clever and have done a very good job making most of us think we are free. your comment is a very good example of that. keep telling everyone how free we have become, and believe it. life is just easier that way.