Lies, Lies, Lies ... Yeah!!

[Necron2.0]

I should stop listening to the news about leaks by this Snowden fellow and what the NSA is doing in/to the USA, because the more I hear, the more I slip into the conspiracy theorist category. Now, to start, I don't actually think my government is actively trying to subvert the free will of the people and herd us all into a totalitarian state. Fundamentally I do not believe the individuals that make up my government are anywhere near that smart, and certainly aren't anywhere close to being organized enough for that. I strongly believe that everything we've seen thus far can be attributed more to stupidity than to malice. We might be shambling aimlessly into a totalitarian state, but we're not being herded into it.

Still, let me spin you a yarn ....

Many, many years ago, before going back to school to get an engineering degree, I was a civil servant. My job was to track people down and catch them in their lies, thus saving the US tax payer from having to support dead-beats. This was in the days before the "World Wide Web" when the internet was called "usenet" and (sometimes) still referred to as "arpnet". File sharing between governmental departments was still done using microfiche. Even so, some of people's most private financial records even then were on computers, and my office (and every office like mine) had access to those records via dedicated computer terminal, and we routinely dug into those records to determine if an applicant was lying. I found out after the fact that we technically weren't supposed to have access to those records, but ....

Skip ahead now to my college days. I went to college to get a degree in Computer Science & Engineering. I'm good at it, but I'm better at math (CSE pays more, which is why I only minored in math). Two classes that I took for my math minor were Numerical Methods and Statistics, and one thing that both of those classes focused on was how to sift large volumes of seemingly unrelated data to deduce patterns and to identify specific problem data points.

Moving on, my first job out of college was working for a telecommunications company. In the 90's there was a law passed in the US entitled "The Communications Act for Law Enforcement Agencies." In current documents they've changed the word "Act" to "Assistance" to make it seem more voluntary and less egregious. The gist of it was we had to build wiretapping functionality into all phone switches. Now if the government wants to monitor all your communications they just have to flick a switch ... basically. Of course they are supposed to get a court order first (see paragraph above on pre-college career).

Now, a few years back I worked for a small company that specialized in small business contracts with the US Military (for details, see here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDMnjnhP3JE#t=4m25s)*). These contracts are awarded through a DoD program called SBIR/STTR (see http://www.sbir.gov/). The idea behind these projects is to encourage companies to develop new technologies that have (at first) a military application but that then can be commercialized to turn a profit for the businesses that develop the technology. Supposedly the awarding of these projects is fair and impartial, but it is an open secret that they are anything but. Some projects are intended from the start to go to a pre-designated developer, and in those cases the SBIR solicitation process is purely a formality. In addition some of these favored small businesses just so happen to be run by or are heavily invested in by former (and sometimes maybe not-so-former) military leadership. When dealing with the DoD on a business level, there is always some truly greasy politics involved, which is one reason why I do not do it anymore.

So what does this have to do with the price of silcon wafers in China? Well, I've been hearing a bunch of patent untruths in the media lately, and they make me cringe every time. I don't believe they are intentional deceptions but still ....

The first and biggest untruth I hear is, "It was only metadata so nobody's privacy was violated." From my background I know that with what they do have, they can identify all your friends, all social groups you belong to, where you live, what your daily routine is, what hours of the day your active, what hours you are inactive and probably who you've come into physical contact with. This can all be done automatically, with no human intervention at all. Lists of targets for further scrutiny would be developed via computer filters and said further scrutiny could be initiated immediately, and could likewise be automated, and in some cases surveillance could be done retroactively. I would also be very, very surprised if the government couldn't turn on the GPS tracker in your phone at any time without your knowledge. Again, that is based on my own experiences in the industry.

The second untruth I hear is that the government wouldn't and couldn't monitor the citizenry without a court order. http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/177/0/3/2010012111_total_lacher_1__by_necron2_0-d6aukyg.gif Ok, moving on.

Today I heard something about US cyber spying in China and other countries. The part of the interview that raised a red flag for me was when the interviewee said US spying differs from the kind of spying China was caught doing because the US government has no way to commercialize anything it may find. While I do firmly believe any spying the US may have done in China is of the same kind that every nation on earth does for security reasons, the notion that the US government (or elements within it) couldn't capitalize on "found" technology is utter bollocks. For reference, see http://www.sbir.gov/.

+++++++++++++++++
* The video got it wrong. I designed and implemented at least one-third of the BDRVT system myself. That system was developed in the US South Western office. Dave's group had little or nothing to do with it. The reason why he's the interviewee is probably because he's got military contacts and relationships Kutta wants to cultivate/exploit.

Edit: Also, the BDRVT isn't new. It was rolled out for the RQ-7A "Shadow" something like three years ago. There's actually a picture of the Shadow in the video.

[Denzark]

Necron - my first thought was 'And?'

But then I thought, 'Blessed is the mind too small to doubt'.

Don't know about you, but I want my democratically elected government to stay ahead of our communist adversaries. I don't care what of my meta data etc they get, because the only criminality I commit knowingly is breaking the speed limit.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, you can't fight with Marquess of Queensbury rules whilst the opposition uses no-hlds barred MMA.

I just hope they do sufficient to stay one step above the opposition.

[Deadlift]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one Denzark, I have nothing to hide and as such am quite happy if GCHQ want to have a poke around in my really quite boring affairs. I know though that I'm not on their Radar but there are many who are. I don't know about you guys but I have lost count on the news how many times our intelligence services have intercepted a terrorist cell / bomb plot etc before any harm has been caused. This is a direct result of our services having the ability to gather intelligence effectively by any means possible. Good for them. They're saving lives.

[DarkLink]

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/

[Necron2.0]

I think Denzark, Deadlink, that you kinda missed the point. The point was that what is being said in defense of the controversial surveillance is so patently false, it almost makes a conspiracy theory seem plausible.

You hear on the news, "Oh, it's just metadata. It cannot be used to spy on you." Yes it can.

You hear, "Your government would never do anything without due process." Our government has institutionalized the violation of due process - has for decades.

And today I heard someone say, "The government could not profit from commercial espionage." I know from personal experience that's not true.

Again it's not about what the government has done (at least not for me). It's that for people like me who are knowledgable of the technology and government procedures, the apologists seem inept and are hell-bent to pour gasoline on the fire.

As for to the surveillance itself, to quote Benjamin Franklin - "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Perhaps you don't know this, having been brought up in the UK, but the entire American psyche is founded on the firm belief that governments cannot be trusted, that tyranny is always waiting at the door to come in, and that the citizenry as a whole must always (always) be prepared at all times to repel tyranny, either from within or without. That is fundamentally why the US is a gun culture. It has nothing to do with hunting. This is also why the Constitution is revered as an almost holy document. One of the first things you learn in school is that the founding fathers had to take up arms to repel tyranny from overseas. The next thing you learn is that they created this disfunctional triumvirate of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government to guard against tyranny from within. Even the very structure of Congress (the Legislative branch) codifies the fact that the founding States did not trust one another and would never abide the preemenence of any one State. They call it checks and balances, but a better way to envision it is as a gang of pirates making decisions for the common good, because everyone has and is holding a knife to everyone else's throats.

So, from an American perspective, the fact that you or I may have nothing to hide doesn't matter. What matters is that the government may have done something to upset the stalemate that supposedly exists between government and the people.

[Nabterayl]

For me, the question is this: are we willing to let innocent people die to abide by the rule of law? If the answer is no, then we don't really have rule of law anymore.

[Denzark]

No Necron, I think you maybe miss my point. I am quite sure what is being said is merely placebo to stop the liberals hand wringing, I am quite sure the government can do all the things you allege, and actually I hope they are doing them, and doing them better than those who would bring harm to our societies.

The thought that US citizens as a majority don't trust their government neither surprises nor bothers me - did I not read recently a bonafide fact that 4% believe the government is actually overrun by 'Lizard People' and believe in UFOs etc?

[jgebi]

oh yer with the GPS stuff anyone can do it just depends on how people have their phones set up to how hard it is. I did it to a friends ex for kicks and then she preceded to kick me :rolleyes: and I wouldn't waste your time with arguing the point as most people are afraid to see the big picture and have forgoten that the pen is mightier then the knife.

I'm curious though as to why the phone companies aloud their lines to be tapped

[Chronowraith]

Any of the information they can garner from the phone metadata is something that could be collected without a warrant by simple observation. You don't need a warrant to stick a federal agent outside on a public road to observe the habits of an individual. All this metadata allows the NSA to do is to collect data with less human interaction and thus fewer resources.

Moreover their are extremely strict intelligence oversight laws on the collection of any intelligence information on american citizens. The intelligence community takes these matters VERY seriously and they aren't even allowed to pull up Google Earth from work to look at their own house without a signed and authorized Proper Use Memorandum (PUM).

I also don't buy this culture of paranoia. It really makes me cringe to hear people call themselves "patriots" in one sentence and then blast the government and explain how untrustworthy our government is in the next. Personally, I trust the federal government with my personal information FAR MORE than I would trust a private entity with my information. The government has far more strict and rigid rules about what they can collect, how they use the information, and what they can do with your information than private industry does. Most private services simply get away with having users sign away their rights to all information posted on their systems or otherwise provided to them.

So yeah, Anyone who complains about the NSA collecting metadata who has a Facebook/Linked-In/Twitter/etc. account should be aware that the government has far less latitude with what/when/and how they look at the information compared to the private entity. Also, the private entity is out to make a buck while the government's ultimate goal is to keep everyone safe.

[Nabterayl]

I also don't buy the culture of paranoia. I strongly disagree with the notion that the American system of government was founded upon a suspicion of government in general, and to the extent that the American psyche has such a suspicion today, I think the American psyche is stupid.

I do still want to know what my "papers" are in this context, though. I don't have to be suspicious of the federal government to want it to abide by the Fourth Amendment.

[Necron2.0]

Moreover their are extremely strict intelligence oversight laws on the collection of any intelligence information on american citizens.

Yep, that's the story. And the government would never use prostitutes to dose unwitting citizens with LSD against their will. And the government would never intentionally infect entire communities with disease. And the government would never brain-fry citizens in psychiatric institutes just to study mind control.
:rolleyes:


I also don't buy this culture of paranoia.

Mistrust isn't necessarily paranoia. What I described is documented history. Samuel Adams was a bootlegger and a smuggler. Most of the founding fathers were scoundrels. Half at least were slave owners. All of them had more in common with Mafia Dons than with paragons of virtue. Go read, because most of the propaganda you've bought into is crap.


It really makes me cringe to hear people call themselves "patriots" in one sentence and then blast the government and explain how untrustworthy our government is in the next.

Then you have no flippin' clue what a patriot is. Who are the nation, the people or the politicians?

[DarkLink]

Moreover their are extremely strict intelligence oversight laws on the collection of any intelligence information on american citizens.

Does the name Snowden ring a bell? Because he's running precisely because he revealed that those strict laws you're talking about pretty much amount to 'do whatever you want, who cares about the Constitution'.

[Chronowraith]

Does the name Snowden ring a bell? Because he's running precisely because he revealed that those strict laws you're talking about pretty much amount to 'do whatever you want, who cares about the Constitution'.

He's running because he broke the law. Period. End of story. The programs he "blew the whistle" on were legal as approved by a court of law and CONGRESS. The exposition of these programs comprises national security because it exposes operational procedures and technical capacity. He has also undermined our government by exposing legitimate intelligence collection against foreign governments at critical junctures.

If all he wanted to do was blow the whistle on questionable NSA programs then why did he reveal to the Chinese press that the US government actively hacks their government systems?


Yep, that's the story. And the government would never use prostitutes to dose unwitting citizens with LSD against their will. And the government would never intentionally infect entire communities with disease. And the government would never brain-fry citizens in psychiatric institutes just to study mind control.

It's not just a story. Apparently you haven't worked closely enough with anyone in the Intel Community to understand this. All members of the IC, even if all they do is work on processing timesheets, have to go through mandatory intelligence oversight training on an annual basis.

All the programs mentioned in your post were doing the very era that caused congress to pass the Hughes-Ryan Act of 1974 and then to amend it again in 1980 and subsequent years. The CIA lacked any sort of meaningful oversight until that critical bill was passed.


Mistrust isn't necessarily paranoia. What I described is documented history. Samuel Adams was a bootlegger and a smuggler. Most of the founding fathers were scoundrels. Half at least were slave owners. All of them had more in common with Mafia Dons than with paragons of virtue. Go read, because most of the propaganda you've bought into is crap.

So because the founding fathers were scoundrels we should seek to be the same? Why continue being scoundrels when we can be BETTER.

Because clearly everything you've been reading isn't propaganda...


Then you have no flippin' clue what a patriot is. Who are the nation, the people or the politicians?

This is one of the most laughable statements I think I've ever read. Politicians are American people are they not? Moreover, POLITICIANS are LEGALLY elected by the PEOPLE. Now, I'm no fan of Congress at the moment since they can't seem to do anything except bicker and occasionally pass some of the most useless bills because they don't have the spines to work onthe important stuff, but they are still legally elected representatives of the people.

Lastly, how condescending can you be? Patriot is not a designation one gives oneself, it is one that is earned and given by our peers. You assume I have no idea what a patriot is when you know nothing about me other than a few sentences on the screen. I can only hope that when my time is done, my peers will grant me the honor of referring to me as a patriot. Despite what you may think you know about me, I love my country. I've served my country since the day I was legally eligible to work, I've worked in warzones around the world AS A CIVILIAN representing my country, and the day-to-day work I do saves the lives of US citizens around the world. So I know exactly what patriotism is since I've experienced it with the many men and women I've had the honor to serve with and ones I continue to work with today.

[Chronowraith]

No, you haven't.

Are you sure you don't work for the NSA since you apparently know who I do and don't work for?



Iran-Contra. Ring a bell? You simply must tell me how joyful it is living in your state of bliss.[?QUOTE]

For someone who accuses me of a reading comprehension failure apparently you didn't read the entire sentence in my post. I explicitly stated that the Hughes-Ryan act has been amended several times since 1974 when it was originally passed to take into account various failures of the bill.

The Iran-Contra affair is a pretty poor comparison to the leaking of information on classified NSA programs. The Iran Contra affair occurred due to a difference of opinion between the executive and the legislature on how to handle international concerns (two actually).

[QUOTE]
Wow. Reading comprehension ... not your skill. The issue was over who formed our government, and why it took the shape it did. Concentrate and try to stay on task.

I wasn't refuting who formed our government. I was simply stating that while the government was formed based on mistrust of centralized power, we can, and should, strive to be better than the governments that caused that mistrust in the first place.




Oh, I couldn't possible match you in that regard.

By the way, I never said I was a patriot .... did I?

I never said you were or weren't a patriot. You were the one that accused me of not knowing what it meant to be a patriot after I made a comment about a common hypocrisy that many who claim to be patriots continue to exhibit. I then proceeded to offer proof that I do indeed know what it means to be a patriot, not because I consider myself one, rather because I work alongside many individuals who are considered patriots.



Oh, and for our UK friends, this guy is a typical midwestern arse. I'm guessing Missouri or Wisconsin. Probably not Kansas - they're uptight but not quite so DERRRR!

Nice, you clearly can't argue a cogent point so you take a cheap shot that stereotypes and generalizes a large segment of the US in a negative fashion. Maybe if you took the time to stop judging people with your clearly biased and close-minded stereotypes you'd see that good/bad/apathetic people come from all corners of the country and/or world.

For the record... I'm a military child. I was born in Florida and raised all over, but predominantly in the south (Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky) and overseas. In my adult life I have lived all over the country, both coasts, overseas, and yes, the midwest too.

[eldargal]

I'm with Necron on this. If you don't think allowing governments unfettered access to your information just because you're scared of 'bad guys' or think you have nothing to hide will result in the government taking liberties with that power then you are hoplessly, ridiculously naive.

[Chronowraith]

I'm with Necron on this. If you don't think allowing governments unfettered access to your information just because you're scared of 'bad guys' or think you have nothing to hide will result in the government taking liberties with that power then you are hoplessly, ridiculously naive.

It's hardly unfettered... it's limited to metadata which simply covers phone numbers, date of call, location of call, duration of call, and the time. There is no actual content or conversation recorded. In order to receive this data the NSA must make a request through the FISA courts.

Even if the report of tens of millions is accurate, in a country of 315-320 million that accounts for, at most, 31% of the population (significant but hardly "unfettered access") and as little as 3%. Since no actual number was quoted by Snowden or The Guardian... we don't know exactly. The truth is likely somewhere in between.

I'm not afraid of "bad guys". If the program went away it's not like terrorists would be jumping out of the woodwork trying to kill people. While I might be naive to trust my government it is also naive to think that security comes without a price.

[eldargal]

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither

They had little to no oversight and were doing what they like, that they hadn't started to record actual conversations is irrelevant left to their own devices they would have done because that is what security agencies do, they gather intelligence. It is why such organizations often become the most loathed element of tyrannical regimes and it is why any country with pretensions to freedom and liberty should have intensive oversight of such institutions. The fact is these institutions in the US and the UK have been spying on their own population with no cause and with with flagrant disregard for the guiding notions of our state systems, the sooner it get's shut down the better.

You're not afraid of bad guys, you're just willing to sacrifice your individual freedoms for some amorphous notion of security, that is so much better.:rolleyes: Maybe we should just have an opt in/out system then, then those of us that actually care about freedom can preserve ours.

[scadugenga]

They had little to no oversight and were doing what they like, that they hadn't started to record actual conversations is irrelevant left to their own devices they would have done because that is what security agencies do, they gather intelligence. It is why such organizations often become the most loathed element of tyrannical regimes and it is why any country with pretensions to freedom and liberty should have intensive oversight of such institutions. The fact is these institutions in the US and the UK have been spying on their own population with no cause and with with flagrant disregard for the guiding notions of our state systems, the sooner it get's shut down the better.

You're not afraid of bad guys, you're just willing to sacrifice your individual freedoms for some amorphous notion of security, that is so much better.:rolleyes: Maybe we should just have an opt in/out system then, then those of us that actually care about freedom can preserve ours.

This.

100x this.

[Chronowraith]

They had little to no oversight and were doing what they like, that they hadn't started to record actual conversations is irrelevant left to their own devices they would have done because that is what security agencies do, they gather intelligence. It is why such organizations often become the most loathed element of tyrannical regimes and it is why any country with pretensions to freedom and liberty should have intensive oversight of such institutions. The fact is these institutions in the US and the UK have been spying on their own population with no cause and with with flagrant disregard for the guiding notions of our state systems, the sooner it get's shut down the better.

You're not afraid of bad guys, you're just willing to sacrifice your individual freedoms for some amorphous notion of security, that is so much better.:rolleyes: Maybe we should just have an opt in/out system then, then those of us that actually care about freedom can preserve ours.

This program had congressional oversight and required court orders to collect the... if you feel that is inadequate than nothing will please you.

As far as your statement about "if left to their own devices" that is nothing but pure conjecture on your part and based solely on what you think you know about the intelligence community. I'm going to guess that this insight everyone seems to have comes from Hollywood and the exposure of past failures since when the intelligence community is successful in their mission, the public rarely knows or finds out what they have done.

[Nabterayl]

Chronowraith, what's your view on the constitutional question? I assume you would agree that, for instance, a program enslaving citizens would not be legal simply because both Congress and a federal court had signed off on it. Does legislative and judicial approval create a presumption of constitutionality in your mind?

[eldargal]

Some of your own congress disagree (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-patriot-act-must-end).

Actually it is based on a considerably knowledge of the history of such institutions and government in general. I'm not going to get into a contest over 'who has the most knowledge of our intelligence' operates because you wouldn't believe me, I wouldn't believe you and it's pointless anyway. Just google KBG, Gestapo, Cheka and Stasi if you want to see what happens when a state let's it's intelligence agencies do anything in the name of 'security'.

[DarkLink]

He's running because he broke the law. Period. End of story.

Way to completely miss the point.



The programs he "blew the whistle" on were legal as approved by a court of law and CONGRESS.

Uh, huh. Yeah. Sure. Because Congress and a court of law have never, ever, ever approved something that was unconstitutional. Ever.

Oh, wait. They do it all the time. In fact, how many days ago was it that DOMA was struck down, after being approved by congress and lower courts?

[Nabterayl]

In fact, how many days ago was it that DOMA was struck down, after being approved by congress and lower courts?
Well, to be fair, it was really only Congress that approved DOMA. But I'm still with you - judicial approval of a law does not make it constitutional. It simply reduces the likelihood that a court will agree with you that it is unconstitutional.

[Kirsten]

it doesn't matter whether the surveillance is legal in the US, the fact is Prism was used to gather data on people in other countries, which is not legal. doesn't matter whether the british government ordered it, it is not allowed. that is what he was bringing to light.

[Nabterayl]

Well, sure. But I expect my country to do things that are illegal in other countries from time to time, just like I expect them to do things that are illegal in my country from time to time. None of my elected officials, as far as I know, have ever sworn to abide by the laws of other countries. They have sworn to abide by the laws (which I mean in the broad sense, not just statutes) of this country, and I object when they fail to do so for no better reason than to keep the country safe.

I don't have any particular mistrust of government; I personally think it's kind of silly to think of government as some kind of foreign entity, the way of my countrymen do. But I still expect the government to abide by the restrictions we have collectively agreed to place upon it - restrictions which are, naturally, much more restrictive internally than they are externally.

[Kirsten]

saying 'it is expected' is a pointless argument. my point was directed at chrono who was justifying government surveillance as being legal. what they did was not legal, so his argument is flawed in that regard.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, we don't really care that we're violating your rights;).

[Necron2.0]

Well, given the strange and completely unproductive turn this thread took from what I had intended simply to be my sharing of observations based on my own FIRST HAND experiences, I thought the following would be appropriate:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7mUaKUp8Ho

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

[eldargal]

Yeah, we don't really care that we're violating your rights;).

I don't have a problem with other governments spying on other countries, though spying on their civilian population in a significant way is unprecedented. What I object to is my government and the US government, governments who over the past few centuries have led the push to democratization and rule of law abandoning their moral principles and spying on their own populations.

Remember the UK government is implicated in this, I'm not complaining about the US government spying on British subjects I'm complaining about the British government spying on British subjects (and the US spying on it's own citizens).

[Necron2.0]

And this ... this probably could replace the US National Anthem:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3H18bkKyG8

And, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the NRA and an avid shooter. That doesn't stop me from realizing some people would probably be better off not owning a gun ... mostly because they're too stupid and irresponsible.

[DarkLink]

One of my favorite lines from World War Z (the movie):

Brad Pitt: "How did you survive [the zombies]?"

Soldier: "Expenditure of ammunition".


But, seriously, I agree with Eldargal. I'm far from an anarchist, but when the government conducts surveillance on an absolutely massive scale on its own populace while handwaving laws and minor little things like the Constitution, something's not right.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Well I *am* an anarchist, so...

Against the "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" non-argument - have you seen the movie Brazil? A character who has "done nothing wrong" is tortured to death because a bureaucratic error printed the wrong name on the arrest warrant. "If you have nothing to hide" assumes both perfect information (impossible), perfect competence (impossible) and also no malicious intent, ever, on behalf of the security apparatus (also impossible). So what you actually get is a whole bundle of people who've done nothing wrong who really do have a reason to be afraid.

80 of the Guantanamo inmates - the ones who've been cleared for release - have done nothing wrong. That's not my opinion but the judgement of the US Government and military which is holding them. The terms under which they were cleared aren't the usual "reasonable doubt" that applies in a criminal court; they've been cleared for release by the military tribunals which have found there is NO EVIDENCE against them. Not doubt, NO EVIDENCE. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time when the US was handing out bounties for "Al Qaeda" members. Some guys decided to get rich quick and grabbed random foreigners.

The youngest of these inmates was 15 when he was grabbed.

So they had something to fear, although "nothing to hide".

For the UK - who remembers Jean Charles de Menezes? Mis-identified as a suicide bomber, shot in the face, then smeared in the press as the security services tried to cover up their own incompetence. He had something to fear, although he had done nothing wrong.

Those are two of the big examples I know. If you were to look, you'd find countless more. The reason the US Constitution is so big on due process, probable cause, and so on, is precisely to guarantee that the US Government has to abide by certain procedures, no matter the "threat". It's a limit on abuse of power, and a safeguard for ordinary people.

It also does not follow that if you've done no wrong, that your private life must be open to scrutiny. This is literally a foundation of western law: UNLESS there is REASONABLE EVIDENCE that you have done something wrong, your PRIVATE life stays that way. Constant surveillance completely undermines that. There's a reason it's "private life" and you are a "private citizen".

The saddest ******* thing is that I bet all the defenders of surveillance programmes in the name of the "war on terror" have even ****ing read Nineteen Eighty-Four, where a spurious foreign threat is used to justify surveillance and clamping down on rights at home. Does the irony not register?

Well, that was a rant, but so it goes. Peace!

[eldargal]

Well I'm not an anarchist as anarchy is simply a void that will inevitably filled by rule of the strongest but I agree with everything you just said.:p Big Brother isn't just an atrocious reality program.

[Necron2.0]

Well I'm not an anarchist as anarchy is simply a void that will inevitably filled by rule of the strongest but I agree with everything you just said.:p Big Brother isn't just an atrocious reality program.

Heh. I used to be an anarchist, in my teens and early 20's, until I realized exactly that. Actually I knew anarchy would beget warlords unless people could be shown a better way. I naively thought if you could show people a better way, they naturally would gravitate to it, thus eliminating the possibility of a warlord. What I did not realize at the time was that in any group of twenty there will always (ALWAYS) be at least one arse. Increase the sample size and you increase the number of arses not linearly, but exponentially. That is because arses attract like arse, and because of group-think, a group of arses turn those around them into arses by osmosis. Germany, circa 1933 anyone?

I still dream that there could be a society living productively together guided only by the principles of enlightened self-interest and a dedication to the common good, but that just isn't going to happen.

EDIT: Or rather I should say it won't happen unless you can strip away society's free will, replace everyone's ego with one common mindset dedicated to selfless sacrifice in the name of the common cause, and heck, while we're at it why not give everyone bodies of living metal. ;)

[DarkLink]

The Iraq civil war is a golden example of what happens when you dismantle most levels of government and military and allow a power vacuum to exist, even when you have half the world's military forces there trying to keep order. Nature abhors a vacuum. That's as true in politics as it is in nature.

[DarkLink]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[Necron2.0]

Someone just pointed something out to me. People in Nixon's administration bugged two buildings, and Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment. People in Obama's administration have bugged the entire @#$!ing world, but in particularly every @#$!ing American citizen, and nobody's saying a damned thing.

[eldargal]

Because Security!

[Wolfshade]

Of course we wouldn't be having this discussion if we had a totalitarian state

[eldargal]

Correct, and we need to have this discussion as a society so we don't end up in a totalitarian state.

[Wolfshade]

Assuming that is a bad thing.

[eldargal]

Ask the tens of millions of victims of fascism and communism whether totalitarianism is a good thing or not. Hint: It is not. It is brutal and inefficient and simply results in the self-appointed leaders perpetuating their own rule at the expense of the good of the people who naively gave them power for 'security'.

[Wolfshade]

It would all depend if you agreed with the states ideology, unless you are thinking of authoritarian.

[Kirsten]

Ask the tens of millions of victims of fascism and communism whether totalitarianism is a good thing or not. Hint: It is not.

spoiler alert

[eldargal]

Totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism with the focus on a charismatic individual leader rather than a party or ruling elite. Believing in the ideology is irrelevant as the system is so inefficient and prone to collapse that the ideology itself ultimately becomes a hindrance to necessary reforms which results in a continual growth of inefficiency and ultimately brutality as dissatisfaction grows and must be repressed.

[Wolfshade]

In terms of the russian example, look at from a state level how the 5 year plans increase productivity and modernised the country. Assuming you survived surely the increase in electricty and fuel and food would be a good thing?

Surely any system where everyone has a common purpose working together is going to be beneficial. I do not think that we have had a pure form of totalitarian in the same way we have not seen a true communist state.

[eldargal]

The Soviet Five Year plans are not particularly impressive. Most of the economic growth was from a very low baseline and the improvements in industry (below targets) came at the expensive of agriculture. Not to mention the 'benefits' of the Five Year plans in the Soviet Union are utterly dwarfed by the economic increases in capitalist countries over the same time frame (1928-90)

There has been no pure totalitarian state for the same reason that there has been no pure communist state: It is completely unworkable in practice and the inherent flaws in the system result in its devolution and eventual collapse. The only way to avoid this devolution is to implement checks and balances which either transform the system into something that is not totalitarian or simply oppress the population utterly to preserve the ruling elite.

[Wolfshade]

I thought the whole plan was to totally oppress the population and indoctrination..

[Mr Mystery]

And just as a toal aside...I do wish people would learn the different between Communism and Democracy.....

Seems Americans in particular (note the word seems, which confirms I'm speaking from a limited perspective) seem to be under the impression Communism is an alternate to Democracy. Which of course it isn't.

You can have a democratic Communism, just as you can have an authoritarian capitalism.

[eldargal]

Yep. Communism = political & economic theory/system.
Capitalism = economic theory/system.

You can even have a politically communist state with a capitalist economy (China) even if it considerably undermines the state ideology. That's where propaganda comes in.:rolleyes: Ironically it is really the only reason the communist elite survive in China, by introducing a capitalist economy they were able to deliver capitalist prosperity something that hitherto eluded other communist attempts.

[Necron2.0]

Because Security!

Do you believe that the ends justify the means? Because that is a Machiavellian philosophy.

I'm just saying if bugging a few hundred people is wrong, then effectively bugging several billion must be proportionately in error.

[eldargal]

Do you believe that the ends justify the means? Because that is a Machiavellian philosophy.

I'm just saying if bugging a few hundred people is wrong, then effectively bugging several billion must be proportionately in error.
I was being sarcastic.:p That's basically the reason given, this is all justified because it will make us safe. Which is, of course, complete bollocks and even if it weren't I still wouldn't think it justified. You can't protect a liberal democracy by destroying it.

[DarkLink]

Because Security!

And Terrorists! Over there, look!


In terms of the russian example, look at from a state level how the 5 year plans increase productivity and modernised the country. Assuming you survived surely the increase in electricty and fuel and food would be a good thing?


Considering that I'm pretty sure both Stalin and Mao's economic and political policies cement them as two of the biggest mass murderers in the history of the entire world, both during a time when the West was flourishing at very low human costs...

[Wolfshade]

The end justifies the means

[Mr Mystery]

So when it comes to these sorts of things, do you feel 'leaks' are more damaging than keeping schtum?

For instance, Wikileaks, the daddy of them all. Now, Julian Assange aside, on account its pretty well known I consider the guy an odious little weasel, did they wind up doing more harm than good?

Likewise this current character who is hiding in a Russian airport. Has it actually helped/will it help anything?

[DarkLink]

The end justifies the means

Not when the means aren't required, and the ends don't even produce the same results as the alternative, less cruel means do.

[Nabterayl]

Also, you know, the point of that saying is that the ends don't justify the means.

[Wolfshade]

Is it wrong to torture someone to find information about a terrorist plot that would kill tens, hundreds, thousands?

[Necron2.0]

I was being sarcastic.:p

Ah. Apologies. The internet communication really does need something like a body language and/or facial smirk detector.

[Necron2.0]

Is it wrong to torture someone to find information about a terrorist plot that would kill tens, hundreds, thousands?

Is it wrong? Definitely. Might it be a necessary evil in some cases? Probably. Should other means (<*cough*>,<*cough*> ... profiling ... <*cough*>) be considered as a less evil alternatives? YES!!

[Wolfshade]

In a society the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or one).

I am uncomfortable with the idea of tortue, not least because people will admit to anything and the evidence is notoriously unreliable.
You end up with a situation whereby the person admits to anything just to stop the pain.

I also think as soon as you resort to the weapons of the enemy then ideologically, you are on a very slippery slope, you lose the situation of being a paragon of virtue.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Shows like 24 have been used to make people think that torture can be used to make people tell the truth. All torture has ever done is make the victim tell the torturer what they (think they) want to hear. It's not a tool for seeking truth; it's a tool for extracting confessions.

There's a good reason "torture" and "the inquisition" aren't associated with "enlightened truth-seeking".

[Nabterayl]

I think we all agree that there are efficiency reasons to avoid torture. But if the question is whether a sufficiently good end can justify a bad means, I think the answer is no. In real life there are likely to be questions over whether the means are actually bad, whether they are actually likely to produce the desired end, and even whether we value the end so much that we don't care if we commit unequivocal evil to attain it - but no, I don't think any end, however good, justifies the means - i.e., makes it not bad.

[DarkLink]

I think the answer is, theoretically, yes, but in practice situations where it's actually more efficient, effective, or both to use cruel means over kind ones are fairly few and far between. One of the only good examples I can think of is nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In previous battles, the Japanese had fought to the last man, woman, and child, quite literally. Before the invasion, the Allies projected something like a million friendly casualties as a best case scenario, no counting the effective genocide of the Nipponese people.

So, ironically, I think it's naive to think that the ends justify the means.

[eldargal]

Is it wrong to torture someone to find information about a terrorist plot that would kill tens, hundreds, thousands?
Yes, because it doesn't work. The idea that torture results in actionable intelligence is a complete fabrication. Even CIA interrogators know it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8833108/Torture-is-not-wrong-it-just-doesnt-work-says-former-interrogator.html). When you are violating someones human rights to no purpose that is wrong. As I've said before, you cannot protect a liberal democracy by destroying it it's moral core.

Regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is a myth as well. The Japanese had already sent out feelers for a potential surrender and there were many elements within the US military AT THE TIME who believed that using their new nuclear capability was unnecessary. This isn't some revisionist left wing thing, it's historical fact. The bombings probably were not necessary to effect a peaceful surrender of the Japanese Empire but for whatever reason it was decided to bomb them anyway. I'm partial to theory it was to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the power of their new toy, fat lot of good it did.

[Deadlift]

Yes, because it doesn't work. The idea that torture results in actionable intelligence is a complete fabrication. Even CIA interrogators know it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8833108/Torture-is-not-wrong-it-just-doesnt-work-says-former-interrogator.html). When you are violating someones human rights to no purpose that is wrong. As I've said before, you cannot protect a liberal democracy by destroying it it's moral core.

Regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is a myth as well. The Japanese had already sent out feelers for a potential surrender and there were many elements within the US military AT THE TIME who believed that using their new nuclear capability was unnecessary. This isn't some revisionist left wing thing, it's historical fact. The bombings probably were not necessary to effect a peaceful surrender of the Japanese Empire but for whatever reason it was decided to bomb them anyway. I'm partial to theory it was to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the power of their new toy, fat lot of good it did.

There is also plenty of evidence to show Japan weren't considering surrender until after the 2nd bomb and even then its thought that the soviets declaration of war on japan 3 days after the 1st bomb is the reason for the surrender. Your "historical fact" statement is a bit over reaching. Of what I have read on the subject it's more conspiracy than "fact"

It's true that many including Eisenhower said the use of the bombs were unnecessary because Japan was largely defeated as is. Many other allied commanders are on the record as saying the bombs were an unneeded barbarous weapon. But Trumen felt that the bombing was needed to compel Hirohito to surrender. To that end wasn't he proven right ?

[DarkLink]

I don't doubt that there were factions, significant or not, within the Japanese empire perfectly willing to surrender. But considering that the US had just spend several years engaged in brutal warfare with Japanese forces in which the Japaneses not only never surrendered, but routinely committed acts of suicide in an effort to take a few Marines with them, I have no doubt that if there were any offers of surrender, they would have been viewed extremely dubiously.

Maybe they would have surrendered. But not until after an invasion, and not until after significant casualties on both sides. The only smart move was to drop the bombs.

And, after all, in the long term it did work out against the Soviets as well. It just took like four decades.

[eldargal]

There are two problems with the theory that the bomb was required:

The surrender can equally be linked to the Soviet declaration of war.
An offer of surrender had already been rejected on the grounds that it was unacceptable that the Emperor remain untouched.

From the US 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey:

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

[QUOTE=Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet]The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan
Eisenhower and MacArthur both objected to it being necessity as well.

So as an example of the end justifying the means it is extremely poor indeed as the means in this case was not demonstrably required.

Your "historical fact" statement is a bit over reaching. Of what I have read on the subject it's more conspiracy than "fact"
The historicals facts I was referring to are those that state there was considerable opposition AT THE time and after to the idea the bomb was necessary, which is absolutely true given that I can furnish quotes from many senior US military figures to that effect.

What worked against the Soviets was continual economic developments, actually. The arms race had little impact.

[Psychosplodge]

For the UK - who remembers Jean Charles de Menezes? Mis-identified as a suicide bomber, shot in the face, then smeared in the press as the security services tried to cover up their own incompetence. He had something to fear, although he had done nothing wrong.


He was an illegal resident, by definition his presence was doing something wrong and ultimately led to the tragic events. Had he left when his visa ran out he wouldn't have been there to be shot.




Regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is a myth as well. The Japanese had already sent out feelers for a potential surrender and there were many elements within the US military AT THE TIME who believed that using their new nuclear capability was unnecessary. This isn't some revisionist left wing thing, it's historical fact. The bombings probably were not necessary to effect a peaceful surrender of the Japanese Empire but for whatever reason it was decided to bomb them anyway. I'm partial to theory it was to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the power of their new toy, fat lot of good it did.

I was under the impression surrender feelers that went out before the bombings weren't the unconditional surrender the US demanded. And the US ignored anything between the first and second bombings because they wanted to field test the second type of nuclear bomb they had?

[eldargal]

The early surrender offers asked that the Emperor not be tried for war crimes. The US ended up agreeing to that after the unconditional surrender anyway so it isn't particularly helpful.

Just to clarify I'm not arguing that it is absolutely certain that the bombings didn't cause the surrender, I'm simply highlighting that even in this supposedly clear case of ends justifying the means it is far from simple.

[Wolfshade]

It depends what the "ends" was, the cynic would cite the previous arguments about it being a show of force to the Soviets to prevent any war. Which I suppose did happen, instead there was an arms race instead.

But we did get good things out of it like Rocketry, and unmanned space exploration.

[Deadlift]

I think it's obvious that both the bombs and the soviet declaration were instrumental in Japan's surrender. Do I agree with the bombing of civilians in war, no but we did just the same in Germany with conventional bombs as the did to us. Anyway I look at it innocents died on both sides. So do the ends justify the means. No not to me.

[eldargal]

It depends what the "ends" was, the cynic would cite the previous arguments about it being a show of force to the Soviets to prevent any war. Which I suppose did happen, instead there was an arms race instead.

But we did get good things out of it like Rocketry, and unmanned space exploration.
The Cold War was still a war, nuclear weapons did prevent a hot war only because the Soviets developed their own very rapidly, the impetus being the American show of force. So rather than heralding the arrival of unparalleled America military might it simply encouraged the other surviving great power to develop it's nuclear capacity thus providing America with a literally existential threat. So if the ends was a display of American power to warn off the Soviet Union it was a singular failure.


I think it's obvious that both the bombs and the soviet declaration were instrumental in Japan's surrender. Do I agree with the bombing of civilians in war, no but we did just the same in Germany with conventional bombs as the did to us. Anyway I look at it innocents died on both sides. So do the ends justify the means. No not to me.

But the facts remain the bombings were deemed militarily unnecessary by much of senior US leadership and Japan was considering surrender anyway. So it is quite likely the same ends could have been achieved through means that did not result in the deaths of over a hundred thousand civilians (from memory) and the long term poisoning of many more. So it can hardly be held up as an ideal example of the ends justifying the means.