7 ms·

If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. If (in hindsight) there had

If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable. If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly. But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are simply out of control. Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by those wishing to thwart accountability measures. Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion? It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US. A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists. When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations had.

PavlovsCat 11y ago
> A principled president This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful orgs? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary... > They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ” A principled population, now that would be something :)
- grandalf 11y ago
  This is a valid point. I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged. We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepticism, but unfortunately a lot of information slips through the cracks due to our limits on attention and information processing. The net effect is that most Americans accept at face value whatever explanation our leaders offer. It's just not necessarily going to benefit the average person to dig deeper looking for truth, and it's far more pleasant to just get on board with the powerful interest group and feel the psychological benefits of group cohesion and being on the "winning" side.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    I don't think the average American cares unough to dig deeper for the truth. I politely used the word care; I hope it's not another word?
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      Maybe it's the way someone who never breathed fresh air doesn't miss fresh air. That is, if we knew what we're missing, even if it's just in relation to "how things could be", we'd care more, I think. And we really are missing out. We have the know-how, technology and morally, for everybody on the world to have a great and dignified life. We just don't have the culture. I often wish I had been born as some kind of genius film maker or author, because I think creating a realistic "utopian" (read: less dystopian) world which is a direct continuation of a realistic rendition of reality could do a lot to inspire us, and overcome our short attention spans and short-sightedness a bit. Then again, I don't know any examples of art really changing much, so I'm not sure. But I do wish there were more such movies and books.. we know about the problems, we need solutions, or at least constructive steps to take, and bigger perspectives than this year or decade. "Stuff is much worse than you think, but I don't have any good ideas how to fix it" is simply too hard a sell. We need to extend helping hands and encouragement, and be good examples. That is banal and easy to say I know, in the end organizing is important, too. I don't mean this in an Alex Jones way, but we need to help each other to wake up. Which reminds me of a slashdot comment I kept around because it struck a chord: > It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander [danger?] level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel. http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=40836325 http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=4083632...
ChrisAntaki 11y ago
> A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists. There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and also supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a presidential candidate. Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it still needs major reform." [3] [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c... [2] http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-utility http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-... [3] http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/ http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
- vonklaus 11y ago
  link [1] is down, in fact several links at senate.gov are down. I don't want to say your claim is disingenuous because you did throw a caveat in there, however Rand Paul did not support handing the internet off to the FCC to regulate if we want to call that defensible. He did however publicly rail against the freedom act and tried to fillibuster it though ultimately that failed.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ChrisAntaki 11y ago
    My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. You're right though, Rand Paul did a lot to fight the "Freedom" Act.
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      > My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he has been consistently vocal about them. Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well. edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him out.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- pessimizer 11y ago
  > all these revelations have done is increase paranoia and misunderstanding It was a leak of truthful information. Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding. I'd also argue that it didn't increase paranoia; it massively reduced the number of people who were classified as paranoid by confirming some of their darkest fears.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - ethbro 11y ago
      > For the average person, your data is being collected along with everyone else's, but of course you're not being spied on, as there is no human personally looking at your data - it would be a waste of resources. Ah, we have different definitions of spied upon. The existence of stored information concerning my activities that I previous thought to be unstored constitutes spying by my definition. Aka the Stasi approach, with most of the employees laid off through superior modern automation.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Godel_unicode 11y ago
    > Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding I disagree with the idea that adding more truthful information will necessarily reduce misunderstanding. It is very possible to say something which, while containing no falsehoods, does not tell the whole story and thereby increases misunderstanding. Note that, for instance, the oath sworn in an American courtroom is not only to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but deliberately includes the phrase the whole truth
Godel_unicode 11y ago
You should consider that the utter silence to which you refer has an alternative interpretation. Namely that the powerful people have said nothing not because they are afraid, but because they are unconcerned.
- grandalf 11y ago
  This is certainly a logical possibility. We are in the midst of a scary slide toward authoritarianism, and an even more scary slide away from respect for the rule of law.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Our powerful people don't read much history, do they? Perhaps they think that the monster will stay on the leash this time. That's cute.
  - tamana 11y ago
    They don't think it will stay on the leash, they believe it has no interest in devouring them. Why would it turn against a powerful ally?
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Powerful allies are tasty.
funkysquid 11y ago
Chelsea Manning

PavlovsCat 11y ago

> A principled president This is a bit off-topic, but I saw something today I couldn't help but think of when I saw that phrase. Even though Hillary Clinton is not every president and may be have been too defeatist (or too obedient) when she said this, my "point" is basically, if even going up against hundreds of millions of dollars seems "out of the question", well, what about the really nasty and actually powerful orgs? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-119082 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-hillary... > They got their meeting at the White House that month, and the two doctors laid out the case for single-payer to the first lady. “She said, ‘You make a convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?’” recalled Himmelstein. “And I said, “How about the president of the United States actually leading the American people?’ and she said, ‘Tell me something real.’ ” A principled population, now that would be something :)

grandalf 11y ago
This is a valid point. I think the most reasonable way to understand public apathy is through the lens of Chomsky's "manufacturing consent". We all consent to whatever government policies we don't oppose, and powerful interests tend to have a large role in shaping the media message about what matters and what is worth being complacent about vs outraged. We should all regard all institutions with some degree of skepticism, but unfortunately a lot of information slips through the cracks due to our limits on attention and information processing. The net effect is that most Americans accept at face value whatever explanation our leaders offer. It's just not necessarily going to benefit the average person to dig deeper looking for truth, and it's far more pleasant to just get on board with the powerful interest group and feel the psychological benefits of group cohesion and being on the "winning" side.
- marincounty 11y ago
  I don't think the average American cares unough to dig deeper for the truth. I politely used the word care; I hope it's not another word?
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    Maybe it's the way someone who never breathed fresh air doesn't miss fresh air. That is, if we knew what we're missing, even if it's just in relation to "how things could be", we'd care more, I think. And we really are missing out. We have the know-how, technology and morally, for everybody on the world to have a great and dignified life. We just don't have the culture. I often wish I had been born as some kind of genius film maker or author, because I think creating a realistic "utopian" (read: less dystopian) world which is a direct continuation of a realistic rendition of reality could do a lot to inspire us, and overcome our short attention spans and short-sightedness a bit. Then again, I don't know any examples of art really changing much, so I'm not sure. But I do wish there were more such movies and books.. we know about the problems, we need solutions, or at least constructive steps to take, and bigger perspectives than this year or decade. "Stuff is much worse than you think, but I don't have any good ideas how to fix it" is simply too hard a sell. We need to extend helping hands and encouragement, and be good examples. That is banal and easy to say I know, in the end organizing is important, too. I don't mean this in an Alex Jones way, but we need to help each other to wake up. Which reminds me of a slashdot comment I kept around because it struck a chord: > It takes foolhardy vigilance to combat the complacency that leads to a slow lead poison death. We have to bark at each other and raise the dander [danger?] level so that we don't fall asleep at the wheel. http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=40836325 http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3016847&cid=4083632...

ChrisAntaki 11y ago

> A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists. There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and also supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a presidential candidate. Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it still needs major reform." [3] [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c... [2] http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net-neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a-utility http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-... [3] http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/ http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/

vonklaus 11y ago
link [1] is down, in fact several links at senate.gov are down. I don't want to say your claim is disingenuous because you did throw a caveat in there, however Rand Paul did not support handing the internet off to the FCC to regulate if we want to call that defensible. He did however publicly rail against the freedom act and tried to fillibuster it though ultimately that failed.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. You're right though, Rand Paul did a lot to fight the "Freedom" Act.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    > My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he has been consistently vocal about them. Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well. edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him out.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 11y ago
> all these revelations have done is increase paranoia and misunderstanding It was a leak of truthful information. Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding. I'd also argue that it didn't increase paranoia; it massively reduced the number of people who were classified as paranoid by confirming some of their darkest fears.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - ethbro 11y ago
    > For the average person, your data is being collected along with everyone else's, but of course you're not being spied on, as there is no human personally looking at your data - it would be a waste of resources. Ah, we have different definitions of spied upon. The existence of stored information concerning my activities that I previous thought to be unstored constitutes spying by my definition. Aka the Stasi approach, with most of the employees laid off through superior modern automation.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Godel_unicode 11y ago
  > Almost by definition it reduced misunderstanding I disagree with the idea that adding more truthful information will necessarily reduce misunderstanding. It is very possible to say something which, while containing no falsehoods, does not tell the whole story and thereby increases misunderstanding. Note that, for instance, the oath sworn in an American courtroom is not only to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but deliberately includes the phrase the whole truth

Godel_unicode 11y ago

You should consider that the utter silence to which you refer has an alternative interpretation. Namely that the powerful people have said nothing not because they are afraid, but because they are unconcerned.

grandalf 11y ago
This is certainly a logical possibility. We are in the midst of a scary slide toward authoritarianism, and an even more scary slide away from respect for the rule of law.
jessaustin 11y ago
Our powerful people don't read much history, do they? Perhaps they think that the monster will stay on the leash this time. That's cute.
- tamana 11y ago
  They don't think it will stay on the leash, they believe it has no interest in devouring them. Why would it turn against a powerful ally?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Powerful allies are tasty.

funkysquid 11y ago

Chelsea Manning