The revolution might be digitized, but if it does indeed happen, I'm afraid it will also be bloody as hell, as almost all revolutions are. I suppose some things never change.
Panama Papers source issues statement
111–120 of 151 posts
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying. In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty o…
"I'm sure you have a source for this assertion" Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :) "I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay.…
> Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)
As opposed to voting for who, exactly?
> Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.
Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional" That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuf…
> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about. So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit. Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed de…
"That's trite xenophobic bullshit."
On the contrary, it just recognizes the fact that nations with competing interests exist. Many of which spy on us for similar reasons. You'd have to be xenophile to justify doing no spying when even our allies are doing the opposite.
"Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed democracy."
The existence of them in many democracies for good reason show otherwise. Plus, we've had methods for detecting and correcting abuses for years. Requires a certain percentage of honest politicians and active citizens, though. That problem was actually created and sustained by democracy a la tyranny of the majority. They're doing it again with likes of Hillary and Trump.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional" That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuf…
> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about. So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit. Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed de…
> Treason laws
At least in the US, Treason involves waging war against the US. I don't think there's anything wrong with treason laws in a developed democracy.
(OTOH, treason laws have nothing to do with Snowden; espionage laws might, but that's a different issue.)
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'm sure you have a source for this assertion" Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :) "I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay.…
> Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :) As opposed to voting for who, exactly? > Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national…
"As opposed to voting for who, exactly?"
Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence agencies that were forming. And probably the dissolution of or great damage to our country later given the leaders would be acting blind. But you'd have a chance.
"Of course, it's easy to make up a world where it would sort of kind of make sense. That's not the one we're talking about, though."
We are talking about that kind of world. Are you saying there's no allies spying on us with potential economic/political results? Or that there's nobody that might threaten us? Both are ludicrous but such issues are at root of my claim that we need a spy agency. So, which do you reject?
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about. So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit. Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed de…
> Treason laws At least in the US, Treason involves waging war against the US. I don't think there's anything wrong with treason laws in a developed democracy. (OTOH, treason laws have nothing to do with Snowden; espionage laws might, but that's a different issue.)
"OTOH, treason laws have nothing to do with Snowden; espionage laws might, but that's a different issue"
There's some overlap between the two although I don't mean it in a strict, technical sense so much as betraying his country to its enemies with criminal action. Espionage is spy activity, often moving information. His actions mostly fall into that. Treason concept often includes aiding and abeitting enemy military. A significant part of that today are the cyber commands on various sides. He certainly gave our enemies a heads up about what we were doing while giving us no such advantage on them. That can be construed as treason given what effect it would have if war broke out.
Note: Apparently didn't help North Korea any during Sony response. ;) So, effect on wartime capability is debatable. I'd say espionage charge for legal leaks at the least with a deal (maybe immunity) due to legit whistleblowing.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about. So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit. Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed de…
"That's trite xenophobic bullshit." On the contrary, it just recognizes the fact that nations with competing interests exist. Many of which spy on us for similar reasons. You'd have to be xeno phile to justify doing no spying when even our allies are doing the opposite. "Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed democracy." The existence of them in many democracies f…
> On the contrary, it just recognizes the fact that nations with competing interests exist. Many of which spy on us for similar reasons. You'd have to be xenophile to justify doing no spying when even our allies are doing the opposite.
Where does the line go for who is to be considered "other"? As someone living in Stockholm, why should I care more about companies in Gothenburg doing well than a company in Oslo? Or am I an outsider as well, since I have a mother from Copenhagen?
> The existence of them in many democracies for good reason show otherwise.
No, that just shows that they're not actual democracies either.
> Plus, we've had methods for detecting and correcting abuses for years. Requires a certain percentage of honest politicians and active citizens, though. That problem was actually created and sustained by democracy a la tyranny of the majority. They're doing it again with likes of Hillary and Trump.
Okay, this is getting far into Poe's law territory.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#118The tone of the statement is very anonymous in nature. Cold and factual. I wonder if this is how its author normally express theirself or if they've written in this style in order to defeat authorship attribution.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :) As opposed to voting for who, exactly? > Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national…
"As opposed to voting for who, exactly?" Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence age…
> Early candidates running for the pacifist party, I guess, given I can't recall reading about anyone platforming against existence of intelligence gathering agency. Anyone who could or was running for office that believed America should be only major power post-Ww2 that didn't have spies. Enough votes that direction might have resulted in the dissolution of our intelligence agencies that were forming. And probably the dissolution of or great damage to our country later given the leaders would be acting blind. But you'd have a chance.
So you agree that such a spy agency was, in fact, not voted in.
Re: Panama Papers source issues statement
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional" That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuf…
> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about. So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit. Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed de…
Yes, we should spy on foreign countries and have an agency to protect ourselves from them. It's not abstract - China attacks us every day. I don't want Chinese hackers breaking into American companies and stealing their secrets, and trust the NSA to do their job on this.
They should work with the FBI to inform companies of foreigners causing trouble with their systems. And they should develop secure protocols and encryption for the benefit of the government and public. Any NSA-collected data should be inadmissible in any court, and they should not be backdooring encryption. They also shouldn't collect any data from purely US-internal networking. On that point, it would be great if packets with start and end points within the US were virtually guaranteed to stay within the US when being routed, but I don't know enough about internet infrastructure to tell whether that's possible.
When Trump gets elected, I bet he'll take a more direct route here and just sanction them or disconnect their internet or something, which should put a stop to it. Then we won't need to rely on the NSA for defense as much.