In my career so far I have been involved in a couple of projects worth several hundreds of millions of dollars, that resulted in the company I worked with to see its valuation multiplied by a factor of about ten over the course of a couple of years. The company was bought resulting in a massive profit for the CEO and immediate associates. I only collected my regular salary. Good for them, they took all the risks, I only did my job.
I admire your attitude. I'd be pissed. If they took risks in running the company, you took a risk by working for them. I assume it was possible that the company would fail and you wouldn't be paid. I've seen it before that everyone in a small company is working hard to make it successful. Once that success is realized and the company is being sold, only the folks in the room when the contract is signed get any money. It isn't always that way of course. But it seems most of the time the profit is rather narrowly distributed.
bullshit, most the dramatic increase in human life and health of the last 500 years has been driven by and is the result of profit-seeking. The only solutions to mankinds problems will be produced and distributed that way
Well then, we're right screwed. Profit seeking can indeed bring about benefits aside from the profit, but they are by-products. When profit is the primary goal, other things will be sacrificed to it. Examples abound of companies making inferior products or putting people in danger in order to maximize profit. The financial sector is wildly profitable, but I'm hard pressed to find the benefit of their activities to anyone but themselves.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Our capabilities and standards of living certainly increased after the industrial revolution. But it's kind of like saying that religion is great because it helps a lot of poor people, while ignoring the wars and bigotry it has engendered. It's a mixed bag. And philosophically, I'm not sure that placing our hope for the future on selfishness and greed is the wisest move.
So... people aren't buying hybrids because they're buying plug-in hybrids or pure-electric vehicles?
Isn't that GOOD news?
What a strange post.
The way I understood it, hybrids were meant as a bridge between gasoline powered cars and electric cars. Especially with Tesla's recent decision on releasing its patents, we'll only see more electric cars. So hybrids will eventually go by the wayside anyway.
That's what I was thinking. Hybrids often don't get good enough gas mileage to warrant the extra cost. Now with more diesels hitting the market, you can get good mileage and still have good power.
Then there's folks like me who wouldn't be interested in a hybrid, but would jump into an electric car in a heartbeat. What can I say, I like fast cars. And electrics get you efficiency and torque. What's not to like (except charging times)?
Unfortunately, I think the most likely is that some whacko group or other gets in charge of a sufficiently major government, and they start a "final war" that's final enough that at minimum civilization collapses. We've already come ungodly close to it, and that was just with nuclear weapons, before weaponized biotechnology really showed up. (It hasn't really showed up yet, but just because nobody has been whacko to contemplate using it. A well designed plague could be a species killer. We've already used it that way against insects, though only in a primitive form.)
This, and sustainable resource management, seem to me to be the biggest hurdles. Lots of time will be required to develop technology powerful enough to allow us to travel inter-stellar distances in space. Thus any civilization advanced enough to develop such technology must have developed a stable government and sustainable resource management. They likely would have moved beyond war and force as a way of dealing with each other, and would value the responsible use of power. Which is why I also suspect they would keep themselves hidden from us as best they could if they were to arrive here. We, as a civilization probably couldn't handle it, and they'd know it.
I don't see why people get their panties in a knot about companies presenting their point of view publicly; you can listen to their arguments and either agree with them or disagree with them.
There is a difference between presenting your point of view publicly and manipulating public opinion. These types of groups do not exist to give a fair and open view of their position. They exist to sway your opinion through appeals to fear and emotion (You'll pay more! You'll lose your freedom!). They will distort, withhold information, and pay off experts all in order to cause you to think a certain way.
So it's not really a matter of two or more views being honestly presented for people to evaluate. It's a matter of interested parties trying to got people to think a certain way, using deception, obfuscation and half-truths to do it.
With all the bullshit they are surrounded by, is it any wonder the American people make such poor choices? Whenever someone blames the voters for the state of the union, this is the stuff I think of.
Look, I didn't mean to be redundant or piss you off. I see by your member number that you've been here a while. So you know how this forum is. That article was the first hit on Google when I searched for: snowden report to superiors. I often do a little research before I post here because I know I'm dealing with a bunch of know-it-all nerds, and I want to make sure my shit is legit. You seem like a good guy (I assume you're a guy, but no one knows if you're a dog on the Internet), let's be friends.
He'd have had a great deal more credibility (and thus have a greater impact) had he gone through proper channels first and gotten no satisfaction. He'd be able to say "I tried to do this the right way, hoping that the system would correct itself, but it didn't, so I decided that the people should know about this by other means."
Bullshit. I've done it. Policy was changed with appropriate congressional notification within about 3 days. Now, granted, what annoyed me was a technical violation of law that a few pilots were unaware of due to the Air Force screwing up the UAV manning, but the point is that in the spy world, IG complaints are taken seriously.
Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.
Really? Not a single fucking one? Do you know something he doesn't?
Unfortunately, we get the government that most voters want, or at minimal is a product of most voter's desires. If 90% of the voters wanted the NSA gone and had that as their big determining issue, it would be gone pretty quickly. But voters want a complex mix of often mutually exclusive thing and with a whole range of priorities. The NSA stuff just is not important enough to enough people.
You mean like when 90% of those polled want stricter gun control laws, or to expand social services, or to increase the minimum wage. or when just about everyone was against the Wall Street bailouts? Public sentiment is often ignored by those in office. But that's not even the point. People generally don't come up with issues on their own. They choose form a list of issues on which they can side with the Left or the Right. The masses can be led, if you do it right. This has been known for a long time and has been refined greatly over the past hundred years or so. So I think saying that the US is the way it is because of the voters ignores the reality that they are lied to, frightened and manipulated into voting the right way.
The law works like this ALL the time. I'm no fool and I sure as hell realize this isn't going to happen anytime soon. But wait a few years for current guys to get out of office, and someone else to get in (likely a Democrat wanting to distinguish themselves from the past, or one of those extrodinarily rare beed of non-crazy Republicans who also are wiling to stand up to their crazy party every so often). Then it might, just might happen. But not for perhaps 5-10 years.
I'd like to think that. But I'm sure you know that the Establishment makes sure no one gets to the Presidential ballot as a D or R who won't toe the line. It's looking like Hillary will make a go next time, and her views fall squarely within the comfort zone of the Elite. She won't be deciding not to prosecute NSA whistleblowers. Heck, Obama was supposed to represent Hope and Change. Everyone was sick of Bush by 2008. But Obama turned out to be the same as the old boss, but with better diction and a smooth jazz soundtrack. It's all about the packaging these days; the same wine in a new bottle.
I really don't understand who you're arguing with, but it's definitely not me. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Trials are a good thing. It is how we as a society decide truth and reach justice. It's also how the citizens of this country nullify laws that they don't like that the politicians won't change. No amount of internet posting is going to accomplish what you want to accomplish here. A trial can. Jurors can decide to ignore the law if they don't like it. If he's found guilty of the crimes he's already confessed to, then he can appeal, perhaps up to the Supreme Court, get a commutation from a future friendly president, or even an outright pardon. All of these things would accomplish what you want. Him hiding in a foreign country means he's a fugitive forever and nobody ever gets justice. He doesn't get justice, the American people don't get justice.
I think you are running into trouble because you seem to be arguing in favor of a legal system that doesn't currently exist. All of the things you mention in favor of it (Jury nullification, presenting a full defense, commutation or pardon from a President) exist according to the letter of the law. But they don't really happen in practice, unless you are wealthy or connected. So you seem to be saying that Snowden is choosing between being a fugitive, or coming home to face a legal system that will treat him fairly and afford him all the advantages that he should theoretically be entitled to. If that were the case, I might agree. But I don't see that as the choice he faces. I think he faces being a fugitive or coming home to face a military tribunal if he's lucky.
I happen to believe in trials. So did the founding fathers. The alternative is summary judgement or an assassination. Would you prefer those? Certainly some authoritarians and monarchists do.
I might take a closer look at how our legal system typically works in every day circumstances before making that statement. I believe in trials too. So do most Americans. But that's not that same thing as saying I believe in or agree with the way the US legal system plays itself out. I won't go into all of it here, but it has to do with how minorities and the poor are treated, private prisons, the role of status and money, and the deference to the national security state in post-9/11 America.
I don't really blame Snowden for avoiding the US authorities. I can't imagine he would get a fair, public trial; not when he's made the US government look so bad. We are living in a time when the President can declare one an unlawful combatant (enemy of the state) and have them arrested and held without trial. I hear reports of secret evidence and secret laws and "alternative interpretations" of known laws. I wouldn't trust my own fate to this system, and I'm just a common criminal. As for Snowden, they'd do all they could to railroad him, and prevent the public from hearing anything he has to say. This isn't the America I grew up in, where I thought I could trust the system.
if you teach kids to add, pretty soon they'll start wanting to think for themselves and only bad things can come of that.
I thought the same thing when I read, "The American public has been trained to think about white versus minority, urban versus suburban, rich versus poor." Well of course they have! That's a big part of the strategy!
That strategy would likely work to stop the illegal immigration from Mexico as well. But you don't see us doing it down there either, do you? Greed and power-madness are strong behavioral motivators. Our leadership has a hard time seeing things differently.
No troops, no money, no sanctions, no weapons sales, nothing. Not to any mid-east country, including Israel.
Just buy their oil, and that's it. What other business do we have there? Let the chips fall where they may.
Why is the US putting itself in the middle of their ancient, perpetual, non-sensicle, squabbles?
I hate to say it, but: let the crazies kill each other, if that's what they want to do. They have been doing it forever, and US presence only gives them somebody else to blame.
All those lives, all of those trillions of dollars, for what? We are no safer from terrorism. In fact, we may be more at risk.
Help one tribe, and you piss off another. Never fails. The "good guys" one day, are despotic leaders, and US haters the next. I think the US supported both Sadam, and Osama, at one point.
As the computer said in "War Games" : "The only way to win is to not play."
What makes you think that stopping terrorism is the primary goal? It isn't. In fact, from a certain point of view, terrorism is a feature. All those lives and trillions of dollars are spent to secure American hegemony. Have you seen the ads for the Navy recently? A global force for good? Who falls for this shit anymore?
Why buy the oil when you can take over the field? When Americans buy gasoline, we want the profit going to Exxon/Mobil, not the Iraqi National Oil company. When you rely on someone to sell you what you need, they have power over you. When you control the means of production, you can control those who rely on it. And if people there don't like it, we'll deal with them. Which is what we're doing.
That is the only way to end the cycle of violence - extermination of the other.
Or, you know, not choosing violence as your tool. The thing is, people don't want to end the violence; they want to win. As long as the goal is victory and not peace, you are correct.
If you were thinking you would realise that drone strikes on a civilian population - on women, on children, on funerals, on weddings - recruit a thousand terrorists for every one they kill. Of course the CIA and the military promote this policy. More terrorists means more money for the CIA and the military, terrorism and counter-terrorism are inherently symbiotic. But foreign policy should not be dictated by the needs of inter-agency pissing matches in Washington DC.
Agreed, but it's not about pissing matches. It's about the ability to project power to get what you want, using those counter-terrorism and other agencies. It's also about using the blowback to demand ever more power. Hegelian Dialectic anyone?
The US's core policy of manipulating governments and societies in the Middle East to secure energy sources and stave off competitors isn't going to change any time soon. So the coercive tactics used in that policy likewise will not change. We'll just go on pissing off local populations, creating more terrorists, and treating it as a problem to be managed, like industrial waste.
I don't see the situation changing unless the US changes it's foreign policy, or the locals give up national pride and radical Islam.
When I say that the views and opinions of the American people are managed to a degree few can appreciate, this is what I'm talking about. In this instance we found out about it. But usually it is kept behind closed doors. People with agendas are constantly managing, shaping and manipulating the picture people get about the world around them. If they can control the information you receive, and the "spin" on that information, they can shape your opinions and perspective to their own ends.
Mind control is a loaded phrase, with certain connotations. So let's call it "opinion control", or "viewpoint control" (See what I did there?). As Obiwan told us, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." So if someone can affect your point of view, they can affect what you consider to be true.
There is an entire industry built around manipulating how you see the world. And most just take it for granted. Isn't it just natural that the PR and advertising industries try to get you to buy a product? But it goes way beyond selling products. It goes to matters of life and death, truth and untruth and that vast expanse in between. If all we know about reality is what we can perceive, someone who can manipulate that perception can manipulate reality itself.
What they do is use their total information awareness to find some excuse to put the executives in prison for a completely different reason. The difference matters little to the executive.
Slashdot Mirror
In my career so far I have been involved in a couple of projects worth several hundreds of millions of dollars, that resulted in the company I worked with to see its valuation multiplied by a factor of about ten over the course of a couple of years. The company was bought resulting in a massive profit for the CEO and immediate associates. I only collected my regular salary. Good for them, they took all the risks, I only did my job.
I admire your attitude. I'd be pissed. If they took risks in running the company, you took a risk by working for them. I assume it was possible that the company would fail and you wouldn't be paid. I've seen it before that everyone in a small company is working hard to make it successful. Once that success is realized and the company is being sold, only the folks in the room when the contract is signed get any money. It isn't always that way of course. But it seems most of the time the profit is rather narrowly distributed.
bullshit, most the dramatic increase in human life and health of the last 500 years has been driven by and is the result of profit-seeking. The only solutions to mankinds problems will be produced and distributed that way
Well then, we're right screwed. Profit seeking can indeed bring about benefits aside from the profit, but they are by-products. When profit is the primary goal, other things will be sacrificed to it. Examples abound of companies making inferior products or putting people in danger in order to maximize profit. The financial sector is wildly profitable, but I'm hard pressed to find the benefit of their activities to anyone but themselves.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Our capabilities and standards of living certainly increased after the industrial revolution. But it's kind of like saying that religion is great because it helps a lot of poor people, while ignoring the wars and bigotry it has engendered. It's a mixed bag. And philosophically, I'm not sure that placing our hope for the future on selfishness and greed is the wisest move.
So... people aren't buying hybrids because they're buying plug-in hybrids or pure-electric vehicles?
Isn't that GOOD news?
What a strange post.
The way I understood it, hybrids were meant as a bridge between gasoline powered cars and electric cars. Especially with Tesla's recent decision on releasing its patents, we'll only see more electric cars. So hybrids will eventually go by the wayside anyway.
That's what I was thinking. Hybrids often don't get good enough gas mileage to warrant the extra cost. Now with more diesels hitting the market, you can get good mileage and still have good power.
Then there's folks like me who wouldn't be interested in a hybrid, but would jump into an electric car in a heartbeat. What can I say, I like fast cars. And electrics get you efficiency and torque. What's not to like (except charging times)?
Unfortunately, I think the most likely is that some whacko group or other gets in charge of a sufficiently major government, and they start a "final war" that's final enough that at minimum civilization collapses. We've already come ungodly close to it, and that was just with nuclear weapons, before weaponized biotechnology really showed up. (It hasn't really showed up yet, but just because nobody has been whacko to contemplate using it. A well designed plague could be a species killer. We've already used it that way against insects, though only in a primitive form.)
This, and sustainable resource management, seem to me to be the biggest hurdles. Lots of time will be required to develop technology powerful enough to allow us to travel inter-stellar distances in space. Thus any civilization advanced enough to develop such technology must have developed a stable government and sustainable resource management. They likely would have moved beyond war and force as a way of dealing with each other, and would value the responsible use of power. Which is why I also suspect they would keep themselves hidden from us as best they could if they were to arrive here. We, as a civilization probably couldn't handle it, and they'd know it.
I don't see why people get their panties in a knot about companies presenting their point of view publicly; you can listen to their arguments and either agree with them or disagree with them.
There is a difference between presenting your point of view publicly and manipulating public opinion. These types of groups do not exist to give a fair and open view of their position. They exist to sway your opinion through appeals to fear and emotion (You'll pay more! You'll lose your freedom!). They will distort, withhold information, and pay off experts all in order to cause you to think a certain way.
So it's not really a matter of two or more views being honestly presented for people to evaluate. It's a matter of interested parties trying to got people to think a certain way, using deception, obfuscation and half-truths to do it.
With all the bullshit they are surrounded by, is it any wonder the American people make such poor choices? Whenever someone blames the voters for the state of the union, this is the stuff I think of.
I'm right in person too! ;-)
Look, I didn't mean to be redundant or piss you off. I see by your member number that you've been here a while. So you know how this forum is. That article was the first hit on Google when I searched for: snowden report to superiors. I often do a little research before I post here because I know I'm dealing with a bunch of know-it-all nerds, and I want to make sure my shit is legit. You seem like a good guy (I assume you're a guy, but no one knows if you're a dog on the Internet), let's be friends.
He'd have had a great deal more credibility (and thus have a greater impact) had he gone through proper channels first and gotten no satisfaction. He'd be able to say "I tried to do this the right way, hoping that the system would correct itself, but it didn't, so I decided that the people should know about this by other means."
You mean like this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/
Bullshit. I've done it. Policy was changed with appropriate congressional notification within about 3 days. Now, granted, what annoyed me was a technical violation of law that a few pilots were unaware of due to the Air Force screwing up the UAV manning, but the point is that in the spy world, IG complaints are taken seriously.
Snowden? Didn't take any of the steps he was told in his inbriefing to address concerns. None of them. Not a single fucking one. He's not a hero; he's a traitor. He should be tried and prosecuted.
Really? Not a single fucking one? Do you know something he doesn't?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Maybe try some bullshit that's not refuted by the very first Google hit.
The fact that it's legal doesn't make it right. A lot of people would be shocked at what's legal.
Unfortunately, we get the government that most voters want, or at minimal is a product of most voter's desires. If 90% of the voters wanted the NSA gone and had that as their big determining issue, it would be gone pretty quickly. But voters want a complex mix of often mutually exclusive thing and with a whole range of priorities. The NSA stuff just is not important enough to enough people.
You mean like when 90% of those polled want stricter gun control laws, or to expand social services, or to increase the minimum wage. or when just about everyone was against the Wall Street bailouts? Public sentiment is often ignored by those in office. But that's not even the point. People generally don't come up with issues on their own. They choose form a list of issues on which they can side with the Left or the Right. The masses can be led, if you do it right. This has been known for a long time and has been refined greatly over the past hundred years or so. So I think saying that the US is the way it is because of the voters ignores the reality that they are lied to, frightened and manipulated into voting the right way.
The law works like this ALL the time. I'm no fool and I sure as hell realize this isn't going to happen anytime soon. But wait a few years for current guys to get out of office, and someone else to get in (likely a Democrat wanting to distinguish themselves from the past, or one of those extrodinarily rare beed of non-crazy Republicans who also are wiling to stand up to their crazy party every so often). Then it might, just might happen. But not for perhaps 5-10 years.
I'd like to think that. But I'm sure you know that the Establishment makes sure no one gets to the Presidential ballot as a D or R who won't toe the line. It's looking like Hillary will make a go next time, and her views fall squarely within the comfort zone of the Elite. She won't be deciding not to prosecute NSA whistleblowers. Heck, Obama was supposed to represent Hope and Change. Everyone was sick of Bush by 2008. But Obama turned out to be the same as the old boss, but with better diction and a smooth jazz soundtrack. It's all about the packaging these days; the same wine in a new bottle.
I really don't understand who you're arguing with, but it's definitely not me. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Trials are a good thing. It is how we as a society decide truth and reach justice. It's also how the citizens of this country nullify laws that they don't like that the politicians won't change. No amount of internet posting is going to accomplish what you want to accomplish here. A trial can. Jurors can decide to ignore the law if they don't like it. If he's found guilty of the crimes he's already confessed to, then he can appeal, perhaps up to the Supreme Court, get a commutation from a future friendly president, or even an outright pardon. All of these things would accomplish what you want. Him hiding in a foreign country means he's a fugitive forever and nobody ever gets justice. He doesn't get justice, the American people don't get justice.
I think you are running into trouble because you seem to be arguing in favor of a legal system that doesn't currently exist. All of the things you mention in favor of it (Jury nullification, presenting a full defense, commutation or pardon from a President) exist according to the letter of the law. But they don't really happen in practice, unless you are wealthy or connected. So you seem to be saying that Snowden is choosing between being a fugitive, or coming home to face a legal system that will treat him fairly and afford him all the advantages that he should theoretically be entitled to. If that were the case, I might agree. But I don't see that as the choice he faces. I think he faces being a fugitive or coming home to face a military tribunal if he's lucky.
I happen to believe in trials. So did the founding fathers. The alternative is summary judgement or an assassination. Would you prefer those? Certainly some authoritarians and monarchists do.
I might take a closer look at how our legal system typically works in every day circumstances before making that statement. I believe in trials too. So do most Americans. But that's not that same thing as saying I believe in or agree with the way the US legal system plays itself out. I won't go into all of it here, but it has to do with how minorities and the poor are treated, private prisons, the role of status and money, and the deference to the national security state in post-9/11 America.
I don't really blame Snowden for avoiding the US authorities. I can't imagine he would get a fair, public trial; not when he's made the US government look so bad. We are living in a time when the President can declare one an unlawful combatant (enemy of the state) and have them arrested and held without trial. I hear reports of secret evidence and secret laws and "alternative interpretations" of known laws. I wouldn't trust my own fate to this system, and I'm just a common criminal. As for Snowden, they'd do all they could to railroad him, and prevent the public from hearing anything he has to say. This isn't the America I grew up in, where I thought I could trust the system.
People don't like to think about it, but most restaurants have rats or roaches.
Now I have to wear pants?! Where does it end?
if you teach kids to add, pretty soon they'll start wanting to think for themselves and only bad things can come of that.
I thought the same thing when I read, "The American public has been trained to think about white versus minority, urban versus suburban, rich versus poor." Well of course they have! That's a big part of the strategy!
That strategy would likely work to stop the illegal immigration from Mexico as well. But you don't see us doing it down there either, do you? Greed and power-madness are strong behavioral motivators. Our leadership has a hard time seeing things differently.
Oh come on. You act like they were smuggling cocaine through Arkansas or something!
No troops, no money, no sanctions, no weapons sales, nothing. Not to any mid-east country, including Israel.
Just buy their oil, and that's it. What other business do we have there? Let the chips fall where they may.
Why is the US putting itself in the middle of their ancient, perpetual, non-sensicle, squabbles?
I hate to say it, but: let the crazies kill each other, if that's what they want to do. They have been doing it forever, and US presence only gives them somebody else to blame.
All those lives, all of those trillions of dollars, for what? We are no safer from terrorism. In fact, we may be more at risk.
Help one tribe, and you piss off another. Never fails. The "good guys" one day, are despotic leaders, and US haters the next. I think the US supported both Sadam, and Osama, at one point.
As the computer said in "War Games" : "The only way to win is to not play."
What makes you think that stopping terrorism is the primary goal? It isn't. In fact, from a certain point of view, terrorism is a feature. All those lives and trillions of dollars are spent to secure American hegemony. Have you seen the ads for the Navy recently? A global force for good? Who falls for this shit anymore?
Why buy the oil when you can take over the field? When Americans buy gasoline, we want the profit going to Exxon/Mobil, not the Iraqi National Oil company. When you rely on someone to sell you what you need, they have power over you. When you control the means of production, you can control those who rely on it. And if people there don't like it, we'll deal with them. Which is what we're doing.
That is the only way to end the cycle of violence - extermination of the other.
Or, you know, not choosing violence as your tool. The thing is, people don't want to end the violence; they want to win. As long as the goal is victory and not peace, you are correct.
You're not thinking at all, you're just emoting.
If you were thinking you would realise that drone strikes on a civilian population - on women, on children, on funerals, on weddings - recruit a thousand terrorists for every one they kill. Of course the CIA and the military promote this policy. More terrorists means more money for the CIA and the military, terrorism and counter-terrorism are inherently symbiotic. But foreign policy should not be dictated by the needs of inter-agency pissing matches in Washington DC.
Agreed, but it's not about pissing matches. It's about the ability to project power to get what you want, using those counter-terrorism and other agencies. It's also about using the blowback to demand ever more power. Hegelian Dialectic anyone?
The US's core policy of manipulating governments and societies in the Middle East to secure energy sources and stave off competitors isn't going to change any time soon. So the coercive tactics used in that policy likewise will not change. We'll just go on pissing off local populations, creating more terrorists, and treating it as a problem to be managed, like industrial waste.
I don't see the situation changing unless the US changes it's foreign policy, or the locals give up national pride and radical Islam.
When I say that the views and opinions of the American people are managed to a degree few can appreciate, this is what I'm talking about. In this instance we found out about it. But usually it is kept behind closed doors. People with agendas are constantly managing, shaping and manipulating the picture people get about the world around them. If they can control the information you receive, and the "spin" on that information, they can shape your opinions and perspective to their own ends.
Mind control is a loaded phrase, with certain connotations. So let's call it "opinion control", or "viewpoint control" (See what I did there?). As Obiwan told us, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." So if someone can affect your point of view, they can affect what you consider to be true.
There is an entire industry built around manipulating how you see the world. And most just take it for granted. Isn't it just natural that the PR and advertising industries try to get you to buy a product? But it goes way beyond selling products. It goes to matters of life and death, truth and untruth and that vast expanse in between. If all we know about reality is what we can perceive, someone who can manipulate that perception can manipulate reality itself.
What they do is use their total information awareness to find some excuse to put the executives in prison for a completely different reason. The difference matters little to the executive.
Now, who would do such a thing?