Slashdot Mirror
Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing the audience at the Freedom Online Coalition Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry defended NSA snooping actions saying: 'Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it. And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices. And that's why he then, after examining it and debating it and openly engaging in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful reforms, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us. And finally, transparency – the principles governing such activities need to be understood so that free people can debate them and play their part in shaping these choices. And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.' He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this debate, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history."
If by "right side" he means leaning towards totalitarianism and increasingly corporatist/fascist views towards online freedoms, then ok, I guess I can agree.
maybe he's correct.
History is written by the victors - not necessarily the good guys.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As far as i can tell, if there was no Snowden there wouldn't be any discussion at all.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
From TFS:
So, Snowden isn't due for jail-time if he were to return to the USA, Mr. Kerry?
And why has the Obama administration brought charges against more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? (Six by Obama, three by all previous administrations combined)
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
But that is precisely what is going on.
"I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."
I don't even know where to begin with this one.
Don't worry. The internet will deal with this because there's money on the line, and the US should understand this. If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.
The outcome from this will be an even harder to stop internet. This may have be an unintended effect, but may end up being a net positive gain for personal liberty in the long run. History is full of reasons why this is a good thing, and why we must never lower our guard.
Interesting times.
..don't panic
The US is so far on the wrong side that it is in the ditch.
US Gov gives itself a stellar report card. What a surprise.
FTFY.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. ... and we all know which side the Ketchup Gigolo is on.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And in other news, a high-ranking Walmart representative assures us that Walmart is on the right side of consumerism. Furthermore, lo and behold, a high-ranking Exxon Mobil representative assures us that Exxon is on the right side of environmentalism.
John Kerry in 1971 Doonesbury comics
Some things never change
If that is the case, be honest about it.
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security CAN come at the expense of cyber privacy."
See? Now THAT would be an honest statement, and I could rightfully criticize it.
"Absolutely transparent" is not possible when talking about a security agency. So everything he says is complete bullshit. What a sorry ass liar. The NSA has proven that they do not even care about laws. And he wants to discuss laws to stop them from doing bad thins? Yeah, that seems like the proper way forward.
With domestic spying, and the allowing of things like the Comcast-Netflix deal, what side are we on for the future?
".... including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us."
Here's a crazy thought: How about you stop starting wars, being the unwanted world-police, and generally just conclude that the world doesn't need your dictation. Maybe then people would stop hating you and trying to "do injury [sic]".
Final conclusion: no meddling = no hate = no need for NSA.
Yours anonymously,
Coward
Mr. Kerry,
We do not need a panopticon, either real-world or virtual on the Internet. And there are solid reasons never to build one. See the writings of your forefathers in government, or George Orwell.
If it doesn't exist, and government is forbidden from making it, it can't possibly be misused. It's the same reason nobody should ever build a "continent buster" cobalt bomb.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ah yes, the man picked to lose to GWB, the "get Hilary out before she can't be elected in 2016"-shield, Mr. Company Man's Company Man, Mr. 1%er's 1%-er wants me to know that the US, as ever, has got my back with this freedom shit, yo.
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom
Bollocks.
"go to jail rather than win prizes"
Kerry doesn't seem to have noticed that our government, particularly his boss's administration, is not giving prizes to leakers but rather jailing them. In particular Snowden's prize did not come from the U.S. government, but the mad scramble to capture and punish him certainly did.
this is not a sig
what do you expect them to do or say?
there has been enough talk about the US 'losing the cloud' and this hurts BUSINESS. that finally got their attention.
now, if they will do anything real about our national conversation about online privacy, that I kind of doubt. we are essentially having the conversation amongst ourselves, but no one who can make laws is really stepping up to meet us and talk honestly about this.
so, we're at step-1, I guess. we admit there is a problem (ie, loss of business revenue, now and in the future) and they are scrambling how to best 'fix' this and yet not really fix it where it counts.
we don't trust you and we may never trust you again. but lets see if anything does change. maybe economics, over a long enough time, could course-correct us and put us back on the freedom track again.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yes, I agree that this administration is on the right side of history, but this is very annoying to people who elected them to be on the left! It's pretty annoying when the only two realistic candidates are the right and far right candidates.
I read the internet for the articles.
...but, don't look back. Look forward. Let's keep the freedom intact.
sig: sauer
Unfortunately those are the only three choices here.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
they say nice things and then continue the bush/cheney agenda. fascism.
At no point he said explicitly this administration is on the freedom side. 1st rules of politics : make the reader read something he thinks he might read but in reality do not say anything. Reader are probably all assuming *what* the right side is. The funny things is, kerry at no point really explicitly said it.
So, if I can sum up his entire speech in a sentence:
"Hey, we're not as evil as a lot of other countries out there! PS. Turrirrists"
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Anybody still want to argue that there are major differences between the two major political parties here in America?
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I believe I speak for the entirety of humanity when I say, "No John. Fuck off, you puppet."
Lets not hold back progress with regressive definition of the English Language, mmmkay?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I've noticed that "Let Me Be Clear" is something of a trigger phrase.
To the media, it means "We expect you to treat the following statements as fact. Plan accordingly".
To the rest of us it means "We are about to lie to you more concisely than usual. However, you should pay attention because this will apply to you".
History is written by the victors. However for this guy to proclaim "victory" by starting to write the history already, before the "battles" have even begun, is a little presumtuous
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
There may be only three categories, but there's nothing to say he only fits one of them
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.
1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count.
2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water.
3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.
It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.
He is an extremely rich person that wants the poor watched. All rich people think this way. Keep those grubby poor people away from my money. And yes you Making $80K a year, you are one of the "grubby poor" to these people.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He said that America will be on the right side of history... and it probably will. You have to remember that "History is written by the winners." - George Orwell
Now what? Are people going to engage in any kind of activism at all or vent on Slashdot? People simply don't give a crap about privacy and the polls show it. Everyone has the "hey, I'm not a terrorist so why should I care?" attitude.
I've been trying to maintain it for my own online experience and the tracking is insanely pervasive. I can't even create a YouTube account without giving out my phone number. I've actually written my representatives to complain about it, but I know I'm in a small, quiet minority in this country. I just get tired of reading all the incensed comments and articles about the loss of online privacy when it amounts to nothing more than another rant.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes." - Kerry
Does he live in such a powerful echo chamber / reality distortion field that he actually believes what he is saying, or does he have such disdain for the citizens that he is comfortable saying the opposite of what is true, to try to squeeze out a few extra votes from those who don't know any better?
The reply to my letter to the FCC regarding Net Neutrality opened with, "Dear Consumer,", and was purportedly from Tom Wheeler. That's what I am? Not a citizen, but a consumer -- a wallet on legs, to be pried open to get at the sweet, delicious money inside? Equal access to communications doesn't matter, as long as the video entertainment circuses gets a fast lane to keep us numb and the subscription cash flowing. To Kerry perhaps it is the same; I am just a vote, to be manipulated in whatever way necessary to serve the greater good. I wonder if both of them open letters to their spouses, "Dear Vagina." The sad truth is I've had the fortune to know some powerful people, and I wouldn't put that last beyond them were they more candid, and less possessed of glib and alluring insincerity. Perhaps the most telling thing is when a reply that opens, "Dear Consumer" shows that they no longer even grasp what the charade is meant to portray.
We are not the consumers, nor the electorate. We are The People. The government is Ours. I tremble to consider the road between here and their understanding of that.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
At least if the story looks like 1984, Brave New World, or The Hunger Games
"Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy."
As in the physical space? So then if "cyber privacy" = physical privacy and "cyber security" = national security then what Kerry is saying is that the US government fully intends to build a police state where every citizen is continuously monitored JUST LIKE in the government does in the cyber world. Because national security cannot come at the expense of personal physical privacy. Good to know.
"But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad."
Well, now they are since Snowden left them no choice. Funny how they weren't quite so committed *before* they got caught with their hands in the Orwellian cookie jar. BTW - inclusive does not apparently mean "We the people." Kerry seems to be referring more to lobbyists and apparatchiks.
That the warriors out dying are the same ones inciting the violence.
Just as often it's an administrator who has never seen a battlefield who is starting a war.
The ones who both administer and fight are usually less likely to throw their men away unless they're sure they can succeed (whether based on mistaken assumptions about their enemies strength or the sociopolitical balance of neutral parties to their conflict.)
Point is: The people starting these wars are more likely to have offspring who will in turn further this agenda yet again and again for as long as they produce offspring,
Stop and consider the Henry Ford business model. Pay people well and they buy your products as well as boost the economy around them so that others can buy your products.
Now consider the Wallmart business model. Pay people poorly, but sell products cheap enough where they can still survive (not thrive).
Which is better for our Republic? Obviously the former is better, it was the model that drove us to the top in terms of economy, GDP, innovation, and wealth.
You should really stop and consider Socrate's Allegory of the Artisan and understand that these issues are not new. Allowing a certain class of people unchecked wealth and government strength to back that wealth is as anti-Republican as you can get.
Wallmart does no service to anyone but themselves and the others holding wealth and power currently.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes" uh huh, we are really giving Snowden a prize right?
Currently hooked on AMP
Actually I was referring to Mussolini more that the National Socialists. Progressives liked the economic system.
Terrorists are a threat to our physical wellbeing, our economy, infrastructure, and our piece of mind, though it has not demonstrated that our democratic process can survive with domestic spying.
Positive political change cannot happen if those preparations are reviled at their inception. Domestic spying allows a political opponent access to their political adversaries intent, which I feel will hinder America's growth.
I do not believe that anyone who such holds the information gathered from domestic spying can use it in a non-partisan way. Who could be politically neutral enough, altruistic enough to have access, without also using that information for their own political gain?
America has yet another problem: the National Security Administration itself, for this is an organization that has run unchecked and unbound by one of the most sacred principles of our U.S. Constitution; the NSA is an organization without checks and balances. There is no method for a United States citizen to defend themselves from action which cannot be disclosed; this, in my opinion is not an American structure, not organization in the intent and aspiration of the drafters of our Constitution.
The ramifications of a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack against our people are great. I know you must answer to yourself and those people who might be lost. Yet, I am also fearful of how those same terrorists might use the information gained from domestic spying should it ever slip from the NSA's grasp. As someone considered a computer expert, I know that can happen; the fact that NSA was owned by a single idealistic American, proves that point.
Lastly, the actual social structure of an entire country has never been so well known; the NSA is running an experiment. In my mind, I feel that it is the government's purpose to maintain peace and create unity--not to invoke fear and distrust. Each day in the news, I see the effort to stop Edward Snowden. Now we all know the NSA's business, and they do not like being spied on any more than we do. We are people. We, as Americans have unalienable rights. Respectfully, I say to you, the NSA has clearly violated the 4th Amendment. We will now watch the NSA work to protect itself like any organic structure, and as someone shunned by society, looking from the outside in, I am fearful and brokenhearted by what I see.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Giving up the lead on an intelligence service is not justified by the harmful actions of a former contractor turned against his country.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So, Snowden isn't due for jail-time if he were to return to the USA, Mr. Kerry?
Rhetorical question. It's an answer that only serves as a shibboleth - whether you want to see law enforced, or that you think that it's OK for a criminal to live amongst our enemies.
And why has the Obama administration brought charges against more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? (Six by Obama, three by all previous administrations combined)
That signals an increased effectiveness of spotting and acting on unauthorized disclosures.
Of course, people would rather disappear this criticism like some would like to disappear Snowden. How ironic.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The US would have been better(and will be) with a "handled" Snowden. Now, he's managed to pass on secrets to hostile countries, while crying the criminal's complaint about being afraid of prosecution.
Of course, that goes against the current lese majeste.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
If you and others were informed enough about the clearance/classification systems in place, you would correct yourselves for being wrong. If you cant take the heat in cleared work, you are not entitled to kill the country - you ask to be relieved of that responsibility.
Snowden is the kind of person that should be denied a clearance and kept far away from government employment.
Of course, everyone would rather do (-infinity, Disagrees with Snowden) than debate it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
...Snowden did to our net detriment, lese majeste be damned.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So the U.S. is on the "Right", as in "right wing", side? I see what you did there. Be prepared to be black bagged for pointing this out to the sheeple...
So what you're saying is, if you feel your work is morally wrong and is hurting the entire nation, you should ask to stop doing it and shut up, because it is clearly right no matter what and you are just too stupid to understand it?
It's the Two Minutes of Hate, brought to you by Emmanuel Goldstein.
He actually said the "write" side of history. As in "In the future, the U.S. will get to reinterpret what is currently the present in order to support the decisions it has made."
You beat me to the joke. This was the first thing I thought when I saw the headline.
Seems to me Kerry is speaking out both sides of his mouth. Obviously there needs to be a balance between the two, but the scale should weigh heavily on the side of privacy. The "security" threat is overblown and utilized as a scare tactic. First of all, we ALL need to realize there is no such thing as security; at least not in the sense of near total security that the government would like us to set as an operational standard. No one person[s] can expect to be secure at any give time. And by the government generating the perception that they can make the country "secure" is a smoke screen for evolution of totalitarianism. Security in the true sense of the word can only be approximated by the actions of each individual, taking steps to ensure their own security by being aware of one's surroundings, being prepared for the unexpected, etc. The idea that the government can make us secure is in order to make people more dependent upon government.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Right, because there's a debate going on in the public about baby eating. Congratulations, you can't even apply a simple 3 rule test.
if you feel your work is morally wrong and is hurting the entire nation, you should ask to stop doing it and shut up
That was his judgment, not the proper judgments made by the set of people that asked for the information, developed the systems(for collection & classification), and collected the information. The former party makes theirs mostly on personal feelings, the latter makes it mostly on objectives.
If you feel that you cannot handle the work that is given to you, it is your duty to step away from that line of work and agree to keep secrets that you agreed to keep secret. If you want to throw away access to one of the last refuges of the technologically inclined US citizen, go right ahead; just don't try to tear apart the country by aiding its foreign enemies.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.