[deleted]
Reform Government Surveillance
181–190 of 223 posts
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#182Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...
>On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...
Democracy is effectively dead; who could we have voted for that would not have done these things if not Obama?
The United States is an oligarchy, just as the Internet has become feudal. Sometimes we'll agree with the decisions of the oligarchs; other times we won't.
But that isn't the question. Should we live in an oligarchy?
(Personally, I'm less optimistic that this is any sort of "tipping point." Humans rarely change their minds, and Snowden became a traitorous footnote to most people a long time ago.)
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#183Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!" .. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? Wha…
> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.
The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government.
In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party lines, which is settled on top of loyalty to the government itself. Next, the executive branch's government agency appointments are vetted by the legislative branch, which is accountable to the corporate branch. The corporate branch can then cycle members via the legislative branch into the government agencies which are then intended to regulate the corporate branch. This allows for high profit margins, which can be used to fund candidacies in the executive and legislative branches, securing their loyalty on top of the already-established loyalty from lobbying.
So you see, everything is perfectly checked and balanced-- against the voters having any political effect via the only legitimate outlet for their demands.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#184Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
I came down pretty hard on Manning, but Snowden is a hero. It's one thing to declare war on secrecy itself by dumping everything you can find. It's something else to release narrowly-targeted material solely for the purpose of pointing out to the voters that their government is lying to them. That's heroic in my book.
Manning is a hero, and its okay to down-vote this post.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#185Among other things, this is the tipping point for how Snowden will be viewed. If all these powerful companies agree, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, that this is an important problem, then Snowden is ipso facto a hero for bringing it to our attention. The curious thing is, I feel the linkage works in the other direction too. If Snowden had been caught and was now having his brains scrambled by solitary confine…
Maybe, I am naive, but I'd like to believe that if Snowden had been captured, he would become a martyr and people would be on the streets now. Eventually the movement would grow strong enough that the big companies would join in.
Not true. People won't be on the streets unless the gov actions directly affects their lives in the ways too grave to ignore anymore.
Manning disclosed that US military was killing civilians basically for fun [1], and yet no people were protesting on the streets (not in large numbers, at least)
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#186As the repercussions of what Snowden helped uncover become more public I hope people gain a better understanding of the man himself and his motivations. Try as I might, I can't find any word other than "hero" to describe him.
I imagine him at work and subject to a constant stream of information showing what our own government is doing to us. I imagine him repeatedly thinking this is wrong. And I imagine him looking deep inside his sole to decide whether his convictions and belief system required him to act or not. Of course, that decision had to come with the full understanding that he would be at the receiving end of the full wrath of the US intelligence, law enforcement and military machinery. At best he'd have to live on the run his entire life. At worst he'd end-up dead or in a dark cell, completely disconnected from humanity.
With that reality in front of him this man decided he needed to stand up for those of us who could not. He decided to, effectively, sacrifice his life in order to attempt to right a massive wrong being perpetrated on the people of the US and the world. That's right up there with a fireman running into a burning building or a soldier taking a bullet to protect your way of life.
This man is a hero. I hope this administration or the next comes to realize how much of a patriot a man has to be in order to risk it all to protect others. With that realization the only thing that remains is to bring the man home with open arms and have him be a big part of making things right for all of us.
That's what needs to happen next.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing more reviled by people who were born during the cold war than a criminal who defects first to china and then to russia. No amount of tech industry pr can facilitate a comeback from that. Almost half of the people in this country will always see Snowden as a traitor. Government surveillance has become a political wedge issue, similar to abortion. No one likes it or encourages it but people have strong…
> There is nothing more reviled by people who were born during the cold war than a criminal who defects first to china and then to russia. I was born during the Cold War and I don't see it that way. In fact, I think you have it precisely backwards. I remember being alive when the USSR and East Germany were going concerns, and those countries seemed so horrible -- the USA really was on what any sane person (by my defi…
Preach it, Brother!
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry but this is just wrong. If Snowden was is Iceland, Switzerland, Germany or France he would certainly be viewed differently. Russia still has a way to go politically. Putin has been running the country for how long? Journalist tend to get killed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in... And Russia is also a dangerous place to be gay. Snowden in Russia looks like politics on the part of…
He wouldn't have made it to Iceland. The USA grounded a government owned plane travelling within Europe to Austria when they thought he was on it. Realistically, China and Russia are the only nations powerful enough to stand up to the USA.
And probably China didn't want to.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.
The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government. In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party l…
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant).
Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge.
You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.
Re: Reform Government Surveillance
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince you.
The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.
But it _does_ work to our benefit. Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed (and even executed), which is a travesty beyond words. But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them.