...building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list.
This sentence struck me. This is what shouldn't happen in America. Am I just getting old? Am I just a little tired this morning? I mean, what the fuck?
Eighty Nine Percent of New Zealanders oppose new legislation to broaden the powers of the GCSB, the New Zealand Signals Intelligence agency that has tradisionally been used to spy on other countries. It is now being turned on those who fund it. However, it must be understood in the context of the countries which are working together. New Zealand is probably spying on citizens of the United States - and that information is being passed back. In fact there are no New Zealanders in the loop - the US gets direct feeds from its spy base here.
It is clear from how Assange, Snowden, KimDotcom, Swartz, Manning, David Miranda and many others have been treated that current administrations are the enemies of freedom. They are supporting a state of affairs more rrepressive and functionally more effective than George Orwells 1984. That a New Zealand Government has been complicit with this pains me.
Let us not forget that the instant that Islamic fundamentalist 'terrorists' once more become useful the US has been willing to arm them. The Syrian rebels are fundamentalists that will no doubt implement strict religious law like the Taliban should the be victorious in Syria. Is this the kind of "Freedom" the US want? The US at one point at least made a good showing of standing for something. It now makes no effort to even disguise its true position, with its clients such as the UK doing its bidding by harassing people like David Miranda in relation to the Snowden leaks. Far from protecting us from terrorists they are once more funding them.
Who will stand for freedom?
Well said. You point out that the US is once again arming Islamic fundamentalists. This to me puts the lie to the claim that any of this is really about terrorism or extremism. That's just the crap they trot out to whip up the masses. The governments don't really care about terrorism; they care about maintaining and expanding their power. That's what this is going on here.
It's almost as if this new level of citizen surveillance has been coordinated globally. But, how could this be? What international organization would want to do such a thing? #thingsthatmakeyougohmmmmmm
I have seen similar oddities in the pro-business propaganda that is being spread worldwide. It does seem as though there is some coordination going on both with surveillance and business friendly legislation. I haven't researched it much so I can't say for sure (it's not like I'm totally up on the laws of other countries, let alone my own).
We do know that organizations like the Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission and ICC exist to further the interests of international businessmen and the Elite. We also know that the intelligence agencies are close to the Elite; they recruit at Ivy League schools, use large businesses as cover, carry out operations to further business interests, etc. So the mechanisms and systems required for such coordination exist. Might it be a surprise if such coordination were not going on?
I don't think it is useful to exaggerate. We don't have any evidence (yet) of malicious intent - almost all of the stuff in this report was just sloppiness because nobody was there to keep them in line. It isn't like they were digging up dirt on political candidates in order to sway elections or blackmailing the leaders of the Occupy movement to make them back off.
Whether it is deliberate or through incompetence is irrelevant. The NSA is still depriving US citizens of their rights on a frighteningly large scale. In addition, the director lied directly to Congress while under inquiry. Nothing is happening to the agency or its members as a result. There's plenty of reason to be upset.
Overall, I agree. But I think it is relevant whether the unlawful searches were deliberate or not. It indicates whether the problem is just one of training and tightening procedures or one of criminal intent. If these illegal searches were done deliberately there should be some accountability (even though there won't be).
Don't worry. The next time you see it coming because you understand this concept of a "track record" or have read a little history, you'll still be called a tin-foil hatter.
There are large numbers of people who never really grew up emotionally and are unable to cope with reality despite possibly having high intelligence. It's not that they have any solid reason to doubt you (in fact it's the opposite if they bothered to look). It's that they want so badly to believe their government is not out-of-control that they're personally offended you would suggest otherwise. Of course anything that offends them must be wrong, right?
This is actually how the average person perceives reality. Yes it's scary. It's why so little effort is put towards prevention.
This is well said. I have offered to explain to people why I think what I think and have had them say, "If what you're saying is true, I don't want to know."
My towns newspaper had a full page ad in it from an advertisment agency a while back. It had a picture of North Korea, the "country without advertisment". Basically what they claimed was that, without ads, we would become like them.
...1 accident involving someone rear ending me at a stop sign then getting out of their car and asking me not to call the police while the sheriff was standing behind them because he had been following her and she hadn't noticed cause she was talking on her cell phone
I dunno where you get this. Most people I know that are rich or at least wealthy, do *NOT* have the time to take out of their busy day (often working and thinking of ways to make their money and grow their wealth) to get out there and put a jackboot on the throat of some poor person.
I get the same feeling when I hear some blacks out there complaining about the "white man keepin' us down". Really? I've never seen a white person, especially one who was going quite well for himself, even have the time to take off to put down some black guy...not even one of them.
Get over it. No one in the world really cares at ALL about you, certainly they don't care enough to go out of their way to put you down or keep you down.
Generally, the people at the top are waaaay too busy trying to be successful. The time and effort others use to clamor that they are being "kept down", is used by the successful to become....well, successful.
Really dude? Google Predatory Lending. There are plenty of ways the wealthy use their power to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
You're right. How dare anyone question the God-given right of greedy, amoral pigs to exploit and dominate their fellow humans!
Heads up...life has always been a contest, for each creature to struggle and fight with others to survive...in our case, to also live more comfortably and provide for our families, even if that means beating someone else out of things to do so.
Not everyone is born equal in stature or ability. Not everyone is born on the same equal footing to start life out upon.
But, that's nature...always has been, always will be.
Mankind has been able to bend Nature to its will in a number of arenas. Why not this one? We have resources such that everyone could have what they need and much of what they want. We moved out of the jungle a long time ago; it's only still a contest because we choose to make it a contest.
"all pretense of defending against terrorism will be gone"
How dumb can you be? Don't you know the Occupy movement ARE terrorists.
Try to keep up!
Exactly. The government decides who is a terrorist. Then the news media trumpet it and the people internalize and believe it. How many suspect that Brian Williams is pumping bullshit into their living room every evening? He's so charming and has such gravitas!
The folks in power know how this works. It has been explained in the past. They know the common people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. And dragged along they are, because the idea that much of what is reported in the news is spinmeister bullshit is too high a hurdle for most people to get over. So Michael Hayden can run his game and people will be properly concerned about the people it is proper to be concerned about.
Can't but agree. You'd have thought that intelligence work would require one to at least be aware of how to form a rational argument. This includes one's awareness of fallacies common in rhetorics... Well, maybe he thought an explicit use of a fallacy will somehow bolster his argument with the dumb populace. Who knows, maybe it even worked.
His statement was designed to scare people, and for that reason does not have to be a rational argument.
Would you care to explain the difference between spying and data mining?
I would love if it didn't start with "one is just wrong because I think so", thanks.
Do you really not understand the difference? Data mining is analyzing information looking for trends or patterns amongst a diverse collection of data. That is indeed part of what the NSA is doing, which is why Brian Williams can say that and not be lying. But they are also building detailed individual files on huge swaths of American citizens; recording what websites they visit, search terms they use, text messages and emails they send, phone calls they make, places they visit and products they buy. When you build a detailed file on someone it's not data mining, it's spying. To characterize it simply as data mining makes it sound much less intrusive than it is.
ALL of Ayn Rand's philosophy did NOT considered people's memories.
Nor did it consider people's characters. I mean really, she was a slut and adulterer.. She had a husband who put up with it. Is her philosophy for those who can't stick up for themselves? Was her husband REALLY OK with that?
It's easy to pontificate your narrow beliefs, but to actually live up to them on a large scale?
I wonder what HER sainthood would have said about Alan Greenspan's policies?
If you read her writing (I don't recommend it) you can see she had a thing for powerful men. She idolized them. So it's no surprise that her "philosophy" lionized them.
Even scarier is the acceptance of NSA monitoring as evidenced by the last line:
Perhaps the lesson is to be a bit more careful about your privacy, so that what you do on the internet remains between you and the professionals at the NSA."
It's not just/known/ that the NSA is monitoring everyone's conversation, it is seen as a good thing. Of course these "professionals" are listening. It's for the good of the country that the every citizen is monitored, after all.
The bar is being set ever lower and comments like these train people to see it as perfectly alright. Increasingly I am of the opinion that this is not accidental.
I took that last line as being sarcastic. Maybe professionals should have been in scare quotes.
You make a good point though. Various organizations actively try to influence the perceptions and attitudes of the public; from advertisers and marketers to political parties and the CIA. And people in the media are trained to use euphemisms and mild language to shape perception. So we get "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" instead of torture and abduction, and "detainee" instead of prisoner. Just last night I had to laugh when Brian Williams described Edward Snowden as having exposed a "massive data-mining effort" by the NSA. Really Brian, is it just a data-mining effort, or is it spying? How something is described matters quite a bit in how it is perceived. Just ask Frank Luntz, he's made a career out of it.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation".
Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices?
Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers.
Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards.
You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.
Look, this is ridiculous. I am all for personal responsibility and I try to exercise it in my daily life. I ride a motorcycle for crying out loud, I need to be personally responsible. So I agree that people need to think about what they are doing and consider the consequences.
But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.
It would be great if we all had perfect information and could make rational choices based on our own sense of what is most important to us. Really, I would dig that. But the fact is we don't have the expertise or the resources to independently judge the entirely of the world around us. It's too big, and life moves too fast these days. We need regulations to make sure basic standards are being met. Sometimes those regulations are used for anti-competitive goals, and I agree that's wrong. But to say regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety is not correct either.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of us have "garage" clothes and don't wear them out. You know, because we have some self-respect and class.
And so would any real terrorist, but they don't seem to consider that.
If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear right?
...building a system that would help match faces in a crowd with names on a watch list.
This sentence struck me. This is what shouldn't happen in America. Am I just getting old? Am I just a little tired this morning? I mean, what the fuck?
Yeah, but we don't have a democratic process. I'm not sure about New Zealand, but the US is a plutocracy now.
Eighty Nine Percent of New Zealanders oppose new legislation to broaden the powers of the GCSB, the New Zealand Signals Intelligence agency that has tradisionally been used to spy on other countries. It is now being turned on those who fund it. However, it must be understood in the context of the countries which are working together. New Zealand is probably spying on citizens of the United States - and that information is being passed back. In fact there are no New Zealanders in the loop - the US gets direct feeds from its spy base here.
It is clear from how Assange, Snowden, KimDotcom, Swartz, Manning, David Miranda and many others have been treated that current administrations are the enemies of freedom. They are supporting a state of affairs more rrepressive and functionally more effective than George Orwells 1984. That a New Zealand Government has been complicit with this pains me.
Let us not forget that the instant that Islamic fundamentalist 'terrorists' once more become useful the US has been willing to arm them. The Syrian rebels are fundamentalists that will no doubt implement strict religious law like the Taliban should the be victorious in Syria. Is this the kind of "Freedom" the US want? The US at one point at least made a good showing of standing for something. It now makes no effort to even disguise its true position, with its clients such as the UK doing its bidding by harassing people like David Miranda in relation to the Snowden leaks. Far from protecting us from terrorists they are once more funding them.
Who will stand for freedom?
Well said. You point out that the US is once again arming Islamic fundamentalists. This to me puts the lie to the claim that any of this is really about terrorism or extremism. That's just the crap they trot out to whip up the masses. The governments don't really care about terrorism; they care about maintaining and expanding their power. That's what this is going on here.
It's almost as if this new level of citizen surveillance has been coordinated globally. But, how could this be? What international organization would want to do such a thing? #thingsthatmakeyougohmmmmmm
I have seen similar oddities in the pro-business propaganda that is being spread worldwide. It does seem as though there is some coordination going on both with surveillance and business friendly legislation. I haven't researched it much so I can't say for sure (it's not like I'm totally up on the laws of other countries, let alone my own).
We do know that organizations like the Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission and ICC exist to further the interests of international businessmen and the Elite. We also know that the intelligence agencies are close to the Elite; they recruit at Ivy League schools, use large businesses as cover, carry out operations to further business interests, etc. So the mechanisms and systems required for such coordination exist. Might it be a surprise if such coordination were not going on?
This has gotten a long way beyond the control of the elected officials. Mess with the dark government and you get a limo ride through Dealey Plaza.
People will call you a tinfoil hatter because they don't want to think the world is run that way. But you're right, it is.
I don't think it is useful to exaggerate. We don't have any evidence (yet) of malicious intent - almost all of the stuff in this report was just sloppiness because nobody was there to keep them in line. It isn't like they were digging up dirt on political candidates in order to sway elections or blackmailing the leaders of the Occupy movement to make them back off.
That may not be true. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/exclusive-top-nsa-whistleblower-spills-the-beans-on-the-real-scope-of-the-spying-program.html
We (the people) gave them a little power, and they grossly over stepped the bounds.
We (the people) did no such thing.
Yes you did, by sitting like a lemon watching crap like america's got talent(sic) you were aiding and abetting it.
So if I'm not actively doing something about everything the government does that I don't like I'm aiding and abetting it? Well that's just great!
Whether it is deliberate or through incompetence is irrelevant. The NSA is still depriving US citizens of their rights on a frighteningly large scale. In addition, the director lied directly to Congress while under inquiry. Nothing is happening to the agency or its members as a result. There's plenty of reason to be upset.
Overall, I agree. But I think it is relevant whether the unlawful searches were deliberate or not. It indicates whether the problem is just one of training and tightening procedures or one of criminal intent. If these illegal searches were done deliberately there should be some accountability (even though there won't be).
Is it time to say "We told you fuckers."?
Don't worry. The next time you see it coming because you understand this concept of a "track record" or have read a little history, you'll still be called a tin-foil hatter. There are large numbers of people who never really grew up emotionally and are unable to cope with reality despite possibly having high intelligence. It's not that they have any solid reason to doubt you (in fact it's the opposite if they bothered to look). It's that they want so badly to believe their government is not out-of-control that they're personally offended you would suggest otherwise. Of course anything that offends them must be wrong, right? This is actually how the average person perceives reality. Yes it's scary. It's why so little effort is put towards prevention.
This is well said. I have offered to explain to people why I think what I think and have had them say, "If what you're saying is true, I don't want to know."
Is it time to say "We told you fuckers."?
I informed you thusly! I so informed you thusly.
My towns newspaper had a full page ad in it from an advertisment agency a while back. It had a picture of North Korea, the "country without advertisment". Basically what they claimed was that, without ads, we would become like them.
Wow, even their propaganda sucks!
IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.'"
I love it when they try to make it sound like the ads are there for our benefit. Gosh, I wouldn't want to have a less diverse Internet experience!
...1 accident involving someone rear ending me at a stop sign then getting out of their car and asking me not to call the police while the sheriff was standing behind them because he had been following her and she hadn't noticed cause she was talking on her cell phone
Priceless!
I dunno where you get this. Most people I know that are rich or at least wealthy, do *NOT* have the time to take out of their busy day (often working and thinking of ways to make their money and grow their wealth) to get out there and put a jackboot on the throat of some poor person.
I get the same feeling when I hear some blacks out there complaining about the "white man keepin' us down". Really? I've never seen a white person, especially one who was going quite well for himself, even have the time to take off to put down some black guy...not even one of them.
Get over it. No one in the world really cares at ALL about you, certainly they don't care enough to go out of their way to put you down or keep you down.
Generally, the people at the top are waaaay too busy trying to be successful. The time and effort others use to clamor that they are being "kept down", is used by the successful to become....well, successful.
Really dude? Google Predatory Lending. There are plenty of ways the wealthy use their power to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Heads up...life has always been a contest, for each creature to struggle and fight with others to survive...in our case, to also live more comfortably and provide for our families, even if that means beating someone else out of things to do so.
Not everyone is born equal in stature or ability. Not everyone is born on the same equal footing to start life out upon.
But, that's nature...always has been, always will be.
Mankind has been able to bend Nature to its will in a number of arenas. Why not this one? We have resources such that everyone could have what they need and much of what they want. We moved out of the jungle a long time ago; it's only still a contest because we choose to make it a contest.
We already have many Karl Marxs on here; your services are not needed.
Do you disagree that that is the game being run on the working class?
"all pretense of defending against terrorism will be gone" How dumb can you be? Don't you know the Occupy movement ARE terrorists. Try to keep up!
Exactly. The government decides who is a terrorist. Then the news media trumpet it and the people internalize and believe it. How many suspect that Brian Williams is pumping bullshit into their living room every evening? He's so charming and has such gravitas!
The folks in power know how this works. It has been explained in the past. They know the common people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. And dragged along they are, because the idea that much of what is reported in the news is spinmeister bullshit is too high a hurdle for most people to get over. So Michael Hayden can run his game and people will be properly concerned about the people it is proper to be concerned about.
Can't but agree. You'd have thought that intelligence work would require one to at least be aware of how to form a rational argument. This includes one's awareness of fallacies common in rhetorics... Well, maybe he thought an explicit use of a fallacy will somehow bolster his argument with the dumb populace. Who knows, maybe it even worked.
His statement was designed to scare people, and for that reason does not have to be a rational argument.
Would you care to explain the difference between spying and data mining?
I would love if it didn't start with "one is just wrong because I think so", thanks.
Do you really not understand the difference? Data mining is analyzing information looking for trends or patterns amongst a diverse collection of data. That is indeed part of what the NSA is doing, which is why Brian Williams can say that and not be lying. But they are also building detailed individual files on huge swaths of American citizens; recording what websites they visit, search terms they use, text messages and emails they send, phone calls they make, places they visit and products they buy. When you build a detailed file on someone it's not data mining, it's spying. To characterize it simply as data mining makes it sound much less intrusive than it is.
See the difference now?
ALL of Ayn Rand's philosophy did NOT considered people's memories.
Nor did it consider people's characters. I mean really, she was a slut and adulterer.. She had a husband who put up with it. Is her philosophy for those who can't stick up for themselves? Was her husband REALLY OK with that?
It's easy to pontificate your narrow beliefs, but to actually live up to them on a large scale?
I wonder what HER sainthood would have said about Alan Greenspan's policies?
If you read her writing (I don't recommend it) you can see she had a thing for powerful men. She idolized them. So it's no surprise that her "philosophy" lionized them.
Even scarier is the acceptance of NSA monitoring as evidenced by the last line:
Perhaps the lesson is to be a bit more careful about your privacy, so that what you do on the internet remains between you and the professionals at the NSA."
It's not just /known/ that the NSA is monitoring everyone's conversation, it is seen as a good thing. Of course these "professionals" are listening. It's for the good of the country that the every citizen is monitored, after all.
The bar is being set ever lower and comments like these train people to see it as perfectly alright. Increasingly I am of the opinion that this is not accidental.
I took that last line as being sarcastic. Maybe professionals should have been in scare quotes.
You make a good point though. Various organizations actively try to influence the perceptions and attitudes of the public; from advertisers and marketers to political parties and the CIA. And people in the media are trained to use euphemisms and mild language to shape perception. So we get "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" instead of torture and abduction, and "detainee" instead of prisoner. Just last night I had to laugh when Brian Williams described Edward Snowden as having exposed a "massive data-mining effort" by the NSA. Really Brian, is it just a data-mining effort, or is it spying? How something is described matters quite a bit in how it is perceived. Just ask Frank Luntz, he's made a career out of it.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation". Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices? Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers. Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards. You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.
Look, this is ridiculous. I am all for personal responsibility and I try to exercise it in my daily life. I ride a motorcycle for crying out loud, I need to be personally responsible. So I agree that people need to think about what they are doing and consider the consequences.
But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.
It would be great if we all had perfect information and could make rational choices based on our own sense of what is most important to us. Really, I would dig that. But the fact is we don't have the expertise or the resources to independently judge the entirely of the world around us. It's too big, and life moves too fast these days. We need regulations to make sure basic standards are being met. Sometimes those regulations are used for anti-competitive goals, and I agree that's wrong. But to say regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety is not correct either.
It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.
That's a life lesson right there.