31–40 of 63 posts
Two things can be true: - the NSA and/or other three letter agencies are/were out of control - Snowden did enormous damage to US and allies with his indiscriminate distribution of classified information https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/snowden-is-a-traitor-and...
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…
I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system? People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face. It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streami…
I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…
I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system? People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face. It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streami…
This all sounds equally as feasible as simply rolling back the surveillance in the first place. The whole point of these systems is to subject the hoi polloi to constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic. Why in the world would they agree to do that to themselves as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed.
His twitter account prior to February 24, 2022
Do you actually have a specific example of Snowden saying that "the Russian Invasion of Ukraine was invented by the American media"?
[1]https://www.coindesk.com/video/recent-videos/edward-snowden-...
I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…
>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. not true. media organizations that do not report in accordance with and to the governments favour may lose preferential access to press conferences as retaliation. their parent companies, viacom, CBS, and Warner for example, may lo…
What the article doesn’t make clear is a publishing company could keep their profits from the book, the government only has a case for Snowden.