6 ms·

There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowd

by hos234 7y ago

There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosis of cancer. You can freak out about it or you can find a Cancer specialist to see what options are available. Asking the technician who gave you the report what the odds are, doesn't make any sense. He knows only how to create the report. In this case just look to history, to understand how these things play out. History is the Oncologist. Intelligence agencies have hard problems to deal with. On top of it, they are giant bureaucracies which means cockups, incompetence, turf wars, hiding issues are the norm. All that amplifies the problems, causes defensiveness, over-reactions and reactions to reactions. If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other got carried away or did damage. That history (in out current environment of over information/disinformation/misinformation) is what will always be a source of hope and faith.

darepublic 7y ago
The cancer metaphor is apt because noone knows how to cure it completely
nickysielicki 7y ago
Bull. Shit. > If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other got carried away or did damage. There are many such programs, says you, and yet you fail to name even one. There has never been this level of government overreach -- if only because of the technology involved. Never has it been like this. Or at least, never has a government survived this.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  ”There has never been this level of government overreach -- if only because of the technology involved. Never has it been like this. Or at least, never has a government survived this” They always has been overreach. This is not new.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    The parent's post means that the overreach has never had the technology we have now. This drastically changes the situation. The government could secretly mandate that all phone manufacturers must secretly record the phone microphone all the time and then this data gets analyzed. If this happens in 10 years, then the general public might not even find out for years, and even if they do, most of the public will just shrug and move on.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I guess that makes sense but if you take into account technological capabilities then the next overreach will almost always be the biggest because the technology makes larger and larger scale possible.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        And this is why we need to care more and more about this issue as a society.
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        True. With current and soon to be tech we can build surveillance much more pervasive than what the book 1984 describes. It feels like it’s almost inevitable for this to happen.
        AndrewBissell 7y ago
        It's only "inevitable" because so many people are proscribing the boundaries of political and legislative action on the issue by discussing it with this sense of fatalistic unavoidability. The mere existence of this technology does not imply that the NSA & CIA have to construct a massive data center in Utah which stores all internet traffic forever -- that is a political choice.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
“There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two.” Very true. For example I think Marx did a great analysis but his solutions lacked. Same happens often in medicine. People who observe something are asked to also explain it. But if they can’t explain the observation it doesn’t mean the observation is wrong.
program_whiz 7y ago
“Better that right counsels be known to enemies than that the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.” ― Baruch Spinoza
- program_whiz 7y ago
  “the ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain by fear, nor to exact obedience, but to free every man from fear that he may live in all possible security... In fact the true aim of government is liberty.” ― Baruch Spinoza
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    That makes no sense. Perfect liberty and perfect security are mutually exclusive.
    - Errancer 7y ago
      M8, Spinoza had some wild ontology to justify his claims
    - unethical_ban 7y ago
      The freedom from worrying about hunger and basic needs and violence from others is security. It isn't referencing total physical security, it is referencing government vs. no government.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      I tend to agree with your sentiments, and my political comments are typically pretty anarchistic, but I don't think we should let language become a barrier to communication instead of a bridge. I can understand how some conceptions of "liberty" are increased by certain security measures. If you can safely have a picnic in the park, you have the liberty of safely picnicing. If the park is full of bandits who consistently take baskets from picnicers, you've lost the liberty of safe picnics even if the official government isn't the one who took that liberty from you. Again, I'm not arguing for increased security, just for understanding the way others use language.
bussiere 7y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowden-at-nsa-sexually-explicit-photos-often-shared.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowde... The problem is how to be sure the line get not crossed ?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asjw 7y ago
The difference here is that the oncologist doesn't just observe. The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure everything with snake's poison. Snowden have done good, but escaped from the consequences of his actions. A position that made everything he's done questionable Had he faced a trial, even the most unfair of trials, would have put him in the position of being at least true to the values he was trying to protect. Question the authority, suffer the consequences. Question the authority, go to Russia is not what generally the public opinion accepts as "honest". There is much to say also about who leaked the data but didn't protect the source. The identity of deep throat has been made public after Nixon was already dead for years and Mark Felt was already an old man suffering from dementia.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  I don't think there was ever a question about hiding his identity - the govt was after him before he'd even left Hong Kong or any leak had been published. At the time he said he didn't care what happened to him. I find it interesting that you posit Deep Throat's approach as somehow more noble. If Snowden had anonymously leaked and kept on working would that have been less questionable or more honest?
- soraminazuki 7y ago
  > Question the authority, suffer the consequences. I’m pretty sure questioning the authority without fear of retaliation is what the first amendment is supposed to be about. But that aside, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Snowden didn’t question the government. He exposed illegal activities by the government.
transitionnel 7y ago
> Intelligence agencies have hard problems to deal with. On top of it, they are giant bureaucracies which means cockups, incompetence, turf wars, hiding issues are the norm. All that amplifies the problems, causes defensiveness, over-reactions and reactions to reactions. This is a good point. In an ideal world their job would be less...complicated. So our job as intelligent, capable citizens is to make the system more ideal for them to do their duties. Making a "captive workforce" out of AI tools and robots is, to me, the ideal solution. Either way it's inevitable. Since no one else will, I'm trying to get out ahead with thoughtful early planning. Communicating a common goal for the nation without fear is the way to get the technology into the hands of the right people. It's up to us, the intelligent and "good people" communicators, to push for it.

by hos234 7y ago

darepublic 7y ago

The cancer metaphor is apt because noone knows how to cure it completely

nickysielicki 7y ago

Bull. Shit. > If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other got carried away or did damage. There are many such programs, says you, and yet you fail to name even one. There has never been this level of government overreach -- if only because of the technology involved. Never has it been like this. Or at least, never has a government survived this.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
”There has never been this level of government overreach -- if only because of the technology involved. Never has it been like this. Or at least, never has a government survived this” They always has been overreach. This is not new.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The parent's post means that the overreach has never had the technology we have now. This drastically changes the situation. The government could secretly mandate that all phone manufacturers must secretly record the phone microphone all the time and then this data gets analyzed. If this happens in 10 years, then the general public might not even find out for years, and even if they do, most of the public will just shrug and move on.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I guess that makes sense but if you take into account technological capabilities then the next overreach will almost always be the biggest because the technology makes larger and larger scale possible.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      And this is why we need to care more and more about this issue as a society.
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        True. With current and soon to be tech we can build surveillance much more pervasive than what the book 1984 describes. It feels like it’s almost inevitable for this to happen.
        AndrewBissell 7y ago
        It's only "inevitable" because so many people are proscribing the boundaries of political and legislative action on the issue by discussing it with this sense of fatalistic unavoidability. The mere existence of this technology does not imply that the NSA & CIA have to construct a massive data center in Utah which stores all internet traffic forever -- that is a political choice.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

“There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two.” Very true. For example I think Marx did a great analysis but his solutions lacked. Same happens often in medicine. People who observe something are asked to also explain it. But if they can’t explain the observation it doesn’t mean the observation is wrong.

program_whiz 7y ago

“Better that right counsels be known to enemies than that the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.” ― Baruch Spinoza

program_whiz 7y ago
“the ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain by fear, nor to exact obedience, but to free every man from fear that he may live in all possible security... In fact the true aim of government is liberty.” ― Baruch Spinoza
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  That makes no sense. Perfect liberty and perfect security are mutually exclusive.
  - Errancer 7y ago
    M8, Spinoza had some wild ontology to justify his claims
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    The freedom from worrying about hunger and basic needs and violence from others is security. It isn't referencing total physical security, it is referencing government vs. no government.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    I tend to agree with your sentiments, and my political comments are typically pretty anarchistic, but I don't think we should let language become a barrier to communication instead of a bridge. I can understand how some conceptions of "liberty" are increased by certain security measures. If you can safely have a picnic in the park, you have the liberty of safely picnicing. If the park is full of bandits who consistently take baskets from picnicers, you've lost the liberty of safe picnics even if the official government isn't the one who took that liberty from you. Again, I'm not arguing for increased security, just for understanding the way others use language.

bussiere 7y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowden-at-nsa-sexually-explicit-photos-often-shared.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowde... The problem is how to be sure the line get not crossed ?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

asjw 7y ago

The difference here is that the oncologist doesn't just observe. The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure everything with snake's poison. Snowden have done good, but escaped from the consequences of his actions. A position that made everything he's done questionable Had he faced a trial, even the most unfair of trials, would have put him in the position of being at least true to the values he was trying to protect. Question the authority, suffer the consequences. Question the authority, go to Russia is not what generally the public opinion accepts as "honest". There is much to say also about who leaked the data but didn't protect the source. The identity of deep throat has been made public after Nixon was already dead for years and Mark Felt was already an old man suffering from dementia.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
I don't think there was ever a question about hiding his identity - the govt was after him before he'd even left Hong Kong or any leak had been published. At the time he said he didn't care what happened to him. I find it interesting that you posit Deep Throat's approach as somehow more noble. If Snowden had anonymously leaked and kept on working would that have been less questionable or more honest?
soraminazuki 7y ago
> Question the authority, suffer the consequences. I’m pretty sure questioning the authority without fear of retaliation is what the first amendment is supposed to be about. But that aside, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Snowden didn’t question the government. He exposed illegal activities by the government.

transitionnel 7y ago

> Intelligence agencies have hard problems to deal with. On top of it, they are giant bureaucracies which means cockups, incompetence, turf wars, hiding issues are the norm. All that amplifies the problems, causes defensiveness, over-reactions and reactions to reactions. This is a good point. In an ideal world their job would be less...complicated. So our job as intelligent, capable citizens is to make the system more ideal for them to do their duties. Making a "captive workforce" out of AI tools and robots is, to me, the ideal solution. Either way it's inevitable. Since no one else will, I'm trying to get out ahead with thoughtful early planning. Communicating a common goal for the nation without fear is the way to get the technology into the hands of the right people. It's up to us, the intelligent and "good people" communicators, to push for it.