Greenwald Criticizes Universities' Funding-Driven Collaboration With NSA

An anonymous reader writes Speaking at "Secrecy Week" at the University of Utah, one of the two journalists who helped disseminate Edward Snowden's revelations about the scope of National Security Agency surveillance has criticized universities which open up their campuses to government agencies in exchange for funding. Ex-Guardian journalist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald, one of Snowden's first contacts after his flight from the NSA, commented: "Even if you think that you're the kind of person who does not have things to hide, just living in a world where you think you're being watched and recorded it changes your behavior from being a free individual. I would submit, and I don't think that it's in dispute, that we are far closer to the tyrannical model than we are the free model."

Comments

we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[fustakrakich]

Eh, people are tyrants, whaddya gonna do? Either we will evolve out of it, or we won't.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[Anonymous Coward]

When are Greenwald et al going to release the full Snowden dump? What are they hiding? They are (a) slow and (b) not transparent enough.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[NatasRevol]

Going to? Haven't we been hoping for that since ancient tyrants in the 3-5000BC era were around?

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[Anonymous Coward]

They've made it very clear and stated repeatedly that they are continue to slowly trickle out the information. Snowden has said a few times there's still a lot of stuff that is going to come out that will be shocking.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[rtb61]

Evolve with it. You even have the dimmest understanding of what you have written. Yep, "KILL ANY WHO RESIST" and quislings, cowards and psychopaths are the only one who temporarily survive and in the chaos that follows the whole species goes extinct.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh. But the point was that they need to change that.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[buck-yar]

Trickling the information out has seemed to desensitize the general population. People that think this all is BS, think so even more after each leak. People on the fence or indifferent, seems to have the effect of slowly boiling a frog vs tossing it in.

Re:we are far closer to the tyrannical model

[fustakrakich]

You even have the dimmest understanding of what you have written.

:-) More than you, apparently.

second post

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily no one is watching me.

Re:second post

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance is noted with approval, citizen. Your file has been updated with a gold star.

Unfortunately, you briefly looked at a government agent in a manner to indicate distrust. Your gold star has been retracted.

You may now go back to not being watched now.

Re: second post

[Anonymous Coward]

That pink frilly dress really brings out the color of your eyes.

Signed Not the NSA

Re: second post

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a tutu.

Signed, not the FBI.

University Dick Pics

[Scottingham]

So...what you're saying is that university officials are giving the NSA my dick pics I sent over my campus email in exchange for funding?

Re:University Dick Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, to be quite honest, they are.
Universities are traditionally VERY compliant with *requests* from law enforcement.
This is because of their buddy buddy ties with government funding.
When you see universities doing anti-privacy stuff and doing all sorts of things that are not *explicitly required* by law,
it will make you sick.

Re:University Dick Pics

[antdude]

Yes according to https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... ;)

Curiously

[argStyopa]

I find it curious that this entire "privacy" thing - which should rightly transcend politics - seems to be largely a concern of the left in the American context: these are the same people that cheerfully support the expansion of government control into everything from health care to commerce.

Isn't that a little contradictory?

Re:Curiously

[GameboyRMH]

No, government control doesn't necessarily mean a loss of privacy, which I think also helps explain why right-wingers aren't against it: It's a gross invasion of privacy (which at least neoconservatives don't care about, because they "have nothing to hide" and don't mind the government in their bedroom) but it's not any kind of government control structure (in itself).

Furthermore, the NSA roughly falls under the "defense" part of government which in the eyes of the right, gets every free pass in the book of free passes and cartes-blanche.

Re:Curiously

[MillionthMonkey]

Agreed, it's totally curious and contradictory, unless you're capable of holding two thoughts in your head at once.

Re:Curiously

[MillionthMonkey]

The government isn't simply "too big" or "too little", as if it's either one or the other. Some parts of the government have atrophied while others have expanded and become tumorous. Dealing with health care and commerce is usually a government's job anyway, unless you want to live in Somalia.

Re:Curiously

[FizzyP]

Privacy is NOT largely a concern of the left. Yes, the left is concerned. So are the libertarians and much of the "new right". In fact, quite a few them seem to spend time on this site.

Re:Curiously

[FizzyP]

That's just not true. Much of the "new right" including the libertarians are very concerned about privacy. They are at least as concerned as the left. In fact, many of them seem to frequent this site.

Re:Curiously

[ShanghaiBill]

seems to be largely a concern of the left

Rand Paul has spoken out against the NSA more consistently than nearly anyone else, even more than Ron Wyden. Rand Paul is not part of "the left". Opposition to the NSA is not confined to the left, but it is confined to the extreme fringes. Privacy is unlikely to play any significant role in the 2016 elections. The vast middle doesn't care, and the fringes have no where to turn.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your sentiment but as a right leaning person I think its unfair to bring right/left into it. I am drastically against this invasion of privacy and against big government even in the form of our defense spending, I consider myself a right winger because of my views of the free market and non government interference. I am becoming increasingly confused as what right and left are anymore. I consider myself right because of fiscal conservatism, which doesn't' apply to foreign policy.

Of course, I could just be considered not as right as I think I am, but still..

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself a "new right"/libertarian and I approve this message.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're wrong about privacy not playing a role in the elections. But I assume we will be talking about gay civil rights and random wars elsewhere

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way - conservatives are opposed to social change, liberals want social change.

Surveillence cements the status quo as embodied by laws so things like marijuana legalization which depend on people breaking the law to discover for themselves that the law is bogus are harder to accomplish. See also the way the FBI tried to blackmail MLK jr with their surveillence. Nobody ever gets blackmailed by the state for supporting the status quo.

Re:Curiously

[spauldo]

Methinks you misunderstand what the left's trying to do.

The idea behind the left, at least in America, is for the government to provide services to the citizens in liu of corporations where it makes sense to do so. The argument within the left is "where does it make sense to do so." They tend to favor regulation more than the right, especially when it will create what they think of as a "level playing field."

The left believes that things like health care will never be properly provided by the free market, and want the government to provide it instead.

The left, in general, are not after government control of the populace. That's actually more associated with the right - specifically the religious right. The leftist politicians that support government control everywhere do so not because they're left, but because they're politicians - they wouldn't be politicians if they didn't want power over people.

People tend to get the "American left" confused with "global left", which is another thing entirely (communism, welfare states, etc.). There are some lefties in America that do believe in those, of course - just like some Americans believe in the extreme right - but they're very much in the minority. What we have here is the problem you get with a two-party system - everything tends to fall into one or the other party and gets associated with it. Gun control is a perfect example - Americans tend to think of it as a "left" issue, but it's really not - it's just associated with the Democratic party.

Then there's "California left," which wants to control what color of paint you can have on your car. Sometimes I think the whole state over there is one big overgrown neighborhood association.

Re:Curiously

[quintessencesluglord]

Ehh...

You could couch the discussion more broadly as influence, as in even privacy wouldn't matter much except for the broad range of powers government has to act upon it. Someone wealthy enough to have servants has a great deal less privacy, but their underlings don't have (mostly) the power to do anything with that knowledge.

In which case the distinction between left and right is less about privacy per se, but sphere of control- the right has areas where they deem government interference/oversight necessary (which requires government intrusion) and so does the left: the teleco amnesty bill was passed when democrats controlled both houses of congress, and was supported by the prominent members of congress (including one Barack Obama) along with overwhelming support from the republican minority.

Republicans especially should know better that these powers get misused, but when the cause is 'Merica , freedom, and fighting terrorist, principle goes out the window (as it does with both parties), and it is a question of expediency.

Problem is, it isn't expedient anymore, and both parties are suffering from memory loss in how they contributed to the problem.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a little contradictory?

Strawmen are often contradictory.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

seems to be largely a concern of the left in the American context:

Are you really fucking serious? Jesus Fucking Christ. The LEFT are the ones making this shit happen. That is the primary thing that has been driving me away from the "left" over the course of the Obama administration. I can't believe I'm actually going to say it, but I would prefer to have Bush over this fucker. I say this realizing that Bush did more than most presidents before him to destroy civil liberties.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it curious that this entire "privacy" thing - which should rightly transcend politics - seems to be largely a concern of the left in the American context: these are the same people that cheerfully support the expansion of government control into everything from health care to commerce.

Isn't that a little contradictory?

Funding of free basic health care is seen as a function of government in many other countries. The opposition to some form of the same in the US is seen as far Right lunacy in Europe and other places.

It's hard to imagine that at one time the major conservative parties of the world were also the champions of individual rights and keeping government to the minimum necessary. Those conservatives of a bygone era would have recoiled in horror from modern government surveillance. Not any more.

Re:Curiously

[Anonymous Coward]

So are the libertarians

There are left-leaning Libertarians. There are many flavors.

Re:Curiously

[buck-yar]

GameboyRMH, you're confusing the libertarian wing of the right with the neo conservative wing. There's a huge portion of right wingers that are very against this. Anyone who doesn't believe me, spend a week reading the general discussion on ar15.com.

Real world

[pbjones]

I'd say that 99 percent of the population won't change because they don't care about ES. They think more about colour change dresses than online privacy.

Re:Real world

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Yank,

In everyone else's version of English its Colour.

signed
an Englishman

Re:Real world

[spauldo]

Funny, the brits have been telling the Americans that for a while now.

Re:Real world

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else is wrong.

Re:Real world

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't colour the french spelling? A true brit would agree that dropping the u is proper in lieu of that development..

Re:Real world

[spauldo]

You're thinking couleur.

See the oxford entry which includes the French word.

I shit in toilets

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenwald is a joke in a lot of ways. Sometimes him helping Snowden isn't enough to redeem his stupidity.

Re:I shit in toilets

[Anonymous Coward]

I read his Intercept site for a while and he really seem to have some serious personality flaws - narcissistic, dismissive of criticism, easily angered, and prone to exaggeration and sophistry - often to the point of drawing contradictory or unsupported conclusions.

It's very important to remember that Snowden went to Greenwald first, and Greenwald didn't listen to him - either due to lack of trust, lack of technical ability to follow Snowden's instructions, or some other factors. Snowden then went to Poitras, who did listen to Snowden. Only then was Greenwald brought in. In other words, it was Poitras that broke the story, not Greenwald.

No.

[waspleg]

The university officials are taking money to let the NSA fish the campus for possible dick pic thieves that they can hire.

The only way to get money is to collaborate

[plopez]

Research funding for is mostly coming from the US DoD and intelligenace agencies these days. As funding for NASA and civilian focused projects dries up, Congress keeps throwing money at the DoD and 'black box' agencies. If you want to fund your research universities you often have to take the military and intelligence money.

Private companies, by and large, do not want to spend money on R&D, they would rather externalize those costs to the taxpayer. If they REALLY believed in research they would spend some of their off shore ~1.8 trillion USD on pure research.

Re:The only way to get money is to collaborate

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the fucking truth right here. My entire family lives off the taxpayers. That money to spy and find news ways to kill brown people in other countries is just too easy. Nothing you can do about it. We have to wait until the empire collapses and rebuild from there.

Re:The only way to get money is to collaborate

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the fucking truth right here. My entire family lives off the taxpayers. That money to spy and find news ways to kill brown people in other countries is just too easy. Nothing you can do about it. We have to wait until the empire collapses and rebuild from there.

Even in the perfect utopia after the rebuild, human nature tends to take over, and the brown people will end up at the bottom of the societal totem pole as usual.

"Meet the new boss - same as the old boss"

Re:The only way to get money is to collaborate

[JimSadler]

Funding opens the door for government intrusion. Even private colleges become agents of the government through funding. Land grant colleges usually have ROTC programs as a requirement of using the land. In order to keep federal money coming in it is rather easy for the government to seek cooperation in various covert programs. State colleges are even easier to push around by the feds. I would bet money that some covert studies have been done in which students were used as guinea pigs and had drugs or bacteria implanted without their knowledge or consent. That flu shot given on campus may have been a flu shot with a little extra added making the kids test subjects.

Re:The only way to get money is to collaborate

[plopez]

Check this out, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . It was done by the US Public Health agency. That agency is paramilitary, why do you think we have a Surgeon General?

The headline should read

[Anonymous Coward]

criticized collaboration with the Rolling Stone