7 ms·

Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power. Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then the law is contravened. Look at t

by babesh 5y ago

Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power. Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then the law is contravened. Look at the US and how it broke international law to force a plane down that it thought had Snowden.

edoceo 5y ago
Huh, TIL.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...
- fanatic2pope 5y ago
  Assange deliberately leaking false information is a very interesting admission.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Given the extreme asshattery history of Assange, it seems just as probable that he was mostly trying to get some attention with guesses and then later claimed that it was a deliberate disinformation campaign.
    - TheTester 5y ago
      Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest, yes he has had flukes but consider the mental state of someone being prosecuted and hunted by the most powerful and corrupt people in our planet, mostly what Assange has done s good and denying and calling him an asshat is dishonest and shows a clear bias on your part
      - tpmx 5y ago
        Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest Why do you think it wouldn't be dishonest if I were quite "rich and powerful"?
      - jhayward 5y ago
        > mostly what Assange has done s good No, colluding with the GRU to create false documents interfering with the US Presidential election, resulting in the disaster that was Trump's election can not, in any sense, be called 'good'.
        cema 5y ago
        Did he really collaborate?
        DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
        this has never been proven. but it was the final blow to his public image after the rape charges. from then on most intel / infosec people who still remained partial moved on to condemning him. Even if he had collaborated would it matter? what it proves is that you can not do OSINT and be "independant/neutral". bellingcat and all other self-proclaimed citizen journalists know it too. the message here is "if you stand up against the US and hang out in a FVEY country you're dead". collaborating with enemies of US (no matter if DPRK, Iran or whoever) would be justified considering the nature of the material which was exposed. but doing so without thinking about his location and safety is the most "I can fix society because I'm a hacker" thing I've ever seen. it is a small crime though in comparison to the shit the US has gotten away and still does so until today. e.g. Gitmo and black sites are still operating, drones still kill civilians, their war on terror will go unpunished, people are still being brainwashed into believing "US army good", the CIA is still executing people overseas the same way as the FSB, while they shout "terror" or talk a big game about "law and justice" their crimes can't be held accountable in the ICC: pot. kettle. black.
        Haga 5y ago
        The rape charges were falsified. The alleged victim simply asked the police whether he could be forced to do a Std test
        DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
      - dmix 5y ago
        We don't expect public figures to be humans anymore. You're never allowed to make mistakes and some video of you from 2-yrs ago in college can be a reputation killer. This is a very irrational mindset and we'd have no great minds of history because they were immature at a young age. People constantly grow, learn, and improve themselves. They also make mistakes or act emotionally. I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window This is the death of radical aka experimental thought.
        KMag 5y ago
        In the near future, only pseudonyms and fools will challenge the thoughts of the day.
        AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. It has nothing to do with flawless. Nobody is flawless. Even if they were, half the things people are now being condemned for aren't even rooted in fact. You can't attack someone like Assange for revealing official misconduct. That's against the rules, and unsympathetic. But you can attack him for <something else>. The something else is irrelevant. It's only the proffered reason for the attack, not the real one.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Your defense seems to boil down to asshattery being understandable when one is persecuted by national security organisations. That would be a valid defense of Assange -- if the asshattery had come after the persecution. But from all I've read about him, it was the other way around. He has always been a humongous asshat.
    - TomSwirly 5y ago
      > asshattery Stopped reading there.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Yeah, the truth can be hard to handle.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- loosetypes 5y ago
  This, among a few other nuggets of which I was unaware, are described in Snowden’s book Permanent Record (although briefly, it’s a biography first and foremost) which I enjoyed.
maybelsyrup 5y ago
1000x this. It's so unusual to talk plainly about power, but that's really what it's all about.
splithalf 5y ago
Would you prefer no laws? Seems we benefit from them no?
- tclancy 5y ago
  Not everyone + you is "we". Lots of people are hurt by bad laws; your appreciation for your government's laws tends to correlate to how much money or clout you have. Mainly because it allows you to ignore them.
- Slow_Hand 5y ago
  Parent post isn’t arguing against the existence of laws. They’re illustrating that laws have limits and can be overcome by entities that wield enough power.
  - splithalf 5y ago
    Look at the post above yours. Yes, some want to make the case that laws on the whole are essentially oppressive. Whether of not foucault made that case precisely, or whatever, is totally irrelevant if it’s what most people actual mean, viz that laws are the tools by which the powerless are oppressed.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  That is one of the largest straw men I have ever seen.
  - ectopod 5y ago
    At that scale it's more likely a wicker man.
  - babesh 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Size_and_scope_of_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Size_and_scope_... The US government was hacking Google by tapping cables between its data centers with direct access to Google accounts. The US government was paying tech companies for data on their customers. The US government had Verizon turn over phone records on millions of their customers daily. The US government used other countries spy agencies to spy on US citizens.
markus_zhang 5y ago
The real problem is that ordinary people do not have power and (secretly) they do not want power.
slibhb 5y ago
Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power. A law that is followed only as long as it is enforced is not much of a law and is unlikely to last. In terms of your broader point, something about restricting the authority of a law-giving entity via the law seems paradoxical. An example of this paradox is the fact that it's difficult to have standing to sue the government over an illegal spying program that is classified. The best we seem to be able to do is the future-government holding the past-government accountable.
- pmiller2 5y ago
  > Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power. Let me know how that works out for you, k? I can assure you that although state power ultimately comes from the people, the state most definitely will enforce its laws against you, should you break them. That is, unless you're rich and powerful enough to afford the best lawyers and a handful of legislators.
  - SR2Z 5y ago
    The state is rarely capable of enforcing the law on more than a small minority of lawbreakers because enforcing the law is expensive. If there's a busy road where people are routinely speeding, the state is actually incapable of pulling every single speeder over and ticketing them. Instead, the state relies on setting reasonable speed limits and scaring drivers with the prospect of fines. This isn't a personal philosophy as much as it is a statement of truth: it's really expensive to enforce laws.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      We now have speed cameras and semi automatic citations.
    - reader_mode 5y ago
      >the state is actually incapable of pulling every single speeder over and ticketing them. a) technology exists where you can just record license plates and send speeding tickets automatically - which is a nice prallel for mass surveilance tech - it makes large scale enforcement much cheaper b) you don't really need to enforce on everyone, a high deterrant + random enforcement creates strong incentives against doing something (ie. making examples)
ultrastable 5y ago
as a great man said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
coolspot 5y ago
Obama won’t scramble jets for Snowden: https://youtu.be/-_mqzSbAPXM https://youtu.be/-_mqzSbAPXM
cma 5y ago
> Power does not give up power. This isn't true, look at for example the nineteenth amendment (men giving up power).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > This isn't true, look at for example the nineteenth amendment (men giving up power). That wasn’t giving up power, it was trying to regain power by no longer claiming power through the abstraction of law that there was insufficient support to practically exercise and which claiming, as a result, merely diminished the general power of the State, because it reinforced in the public eye the gulf between law and power, reducing willingness to defer t9 the former in general.

by babesh 5y ago

edoceo 5y ago

Huh, TIL.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...

fanatic2pope 5y ago
Assange deliberately leaking false information is a very interesting admission.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Given the extreme asshattery history of Assange, it seems just as probable that he was mostly trying to get some attention with guesses and then later claimed that it was a deliberate disinformation campaign.
  - TheTester 5y ago
    Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest, yes he has had flukes but consider the mental state of someone being prosecuted and hunted by the most powerful and corrupt people in our planet, mostly what Assange has done s good and denying and calling him an asshat is dishonest and shows a clear bias on your part
    - tpmx 5y ago
      Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest Why do you think it wouldn't be dishonest if I were quite "rich and powerful"?
    - jhayward 5y ago
      > mostly what Assange has done s good No, colluding with the GRU to create false documents interfering with the US Presidential election, resulting in the disaster that was Trump's election can not, in any sense, be called 'good'.
      - cema 5y ago
        Did he really collaborate?
        DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
        this has never been proven. but it was the final blow to his public image after the rape charges. from then on most intel / infosec people who still remained partial moved on to condemning him. Even if he had collaborated would it matter? what it proves is that you can not do OSINT and be "independant/neutral". bellingcat and all other self-proclaimed citizen journalists know it too. the message here is "if you stand up against the US and hang out in a FVEY country you're dead". collaborating with enemies of US (no matter if DPRK, Iran or whoever) would be justified considering the nature of the material which was exposed. but doing so without thinking about his location and safety is the most "I can fix society because I'm a hacker" thing I've ever seen. it is a small crime though in comparison to the shit the US has gotten away and still does so until today. e.g. Gitmo and black sites are still operating, drones still kill civilians, their war on terror will go unpunished, people are still being brainwashed into believing "US army good", the CIA is still executing people overseas the same way as the FSB, while they shout "terror" or talk a big game about "law and justice" their crimes can't be held accountable in the ICC: pot. kettle. black.
        Haga 5y ago
        The rape charges were falsified. The alleged victim simply asked the police whether he could be forced to do a Std test
        DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    - dmix 5y ago
      We don't expect public figures to be humans anymore. You're never allowed to make mistakes and some video of you from 2-yrs ago in college can be a reputation killer. This is a very irrational mindset and we'd have no great minds of history because they were immature at a young age. People constantly grow, learn, and improve themselves. They also make mistakes or act emotionally. I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window This is the death of radical aka experimental thought.
      - KMag 5y ago
        In the near future, only pseudonyms and fools will challenge the thoughts of the day.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        > I feel like we've entered a social media era where only the flawless and speaking within socially acceptable Overton window are given a chance. It has nothing to do with flawless. Nobody is flawless. Even if they were, half the things people are now being condemned for aren't even rooted in fact. You can't attack someone like Assange for revealing official misconduct. That's against the rules, and unsympathetic. But you can attack him for <something else>. The something else is irrelevant. It's only the proffered reason for the attack, not the real one.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Your defense seems to boil down to asshattery being understandable when one is persecuted by national security organisations. That would be a valid defense of Assange -- if the asshattery had come after the persecution. But from all I've read about him, it was the other way around. He has always been a humongous asshat.
  - TomSwirly 5y ago
    > asshattery Stopped reading there.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Yeah, the truth can be hard to handle.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
loosetypes 5y ago
This, among a few other nuggets of which I was unaware, are described in Snowden’s book Permanent Record (although briefly, it’s a biography first and foremost) which I enjoyed.

maybelsyrup 5y ago

1000x this. It's so unusual to talk plainly about power, but that's really what it's all about.

splithalf 5y ago

Would you prefer no laws? Seems we benefit from them no?

tclancy 5y ago
Not everyone + you is "we". Lots of people are hurt by bad laws; your appreciation for your government's laws tends to correlate to how much money or clout you have. Mainly because it allows you to ignore them.
Slow_Hand 5y ago
Parent post isn’t arguing against the existence of laws. They’re illustrating that laws have limits and can be overcome by entities that wield enough power.
- splithalf 5y ago
  Look at the post above yours. Yes, some want to make the case that laws on the whole are essentially oppressive. Whether of not foucault made that case precisely, or whatever, is totally irrelevant if it’s what most people actual mean, viz that laws are the tools by which the powerless are oppressed.
kmonsen 5y ago
That is one of the largest straw men I have ever seen.
- ectopod 5y ago
  At that scale it's more likely a wicker man.
- babesh 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Size_and_scope_of_disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Size_and_scope_... The US government was hacking Google by tapping cables between its data centers with direct access to Google accounts. The US government was paying tech companies for data on their customers. The US government had Verizon turn over phone records on millions of their customers daily. The US government used other countries spy agencies to spy on US citizens.

markus_zhang 5y ago

The real problem is that ordinary people do not have power and (secretly) they do not want power.

slibhb 5y ago

Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power. A law that is followed only as long as it is enforced is not much of a law and is unlikely to last. In terms of your broader point, something about restricting the authority of a law-giving entity via the law seems paradoxical. An example of this paradox is the fact that it's difficult to have standing to sue the government over an illegal spying program that is classified. The best we seem to be able to do is the future-government holding the past-government accountable.

pmiller2 5y ago
> Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power. Let me know how that works out for you, k? I can assure you that although state power ultimately comes from the people, the state most definitely will enforce its laws against you, should you break them. That is, unless you're rich and powerful enough to afford the best lawyers and a handful of legislators.
- SR2Z 5y ago
  The state is rarely capable of enforcing the law on more than a small minority of lawbreakers because enforcing the law is expensive. If there's a busy road where people are routinely speeding, the state is actually incapable of pulling every single speeder over and ticketing them. Instead, the state relies on setting reasonable speed limits and scaring drivers with the prospect of fines. This isn't a personal philosophy as much as it is a statement of truth: it's really expensive to enforce laws.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    We now have speed cameras and semi automatic citations.
  - reader_mode 5y ago
    >the state is actually incapable of pulling every single speeder over and ticketing them. a) technology exists where you can just record license plates and send speeding tickets automatically - which is a nice prallel for mass surveilance tech - it makes large scale enforcement much cheaper b) you don't really need to enforce on everyone, a high deterrant + random enforcement creates strong incentives against doing something (ie. making examples)

ultrastable 5y ago

as a great man said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

coolspot 5y ago

Obama won’t scramble jets for Snowden: https://youtu.be/-_mqzSbAPXM https://youtu.be/-_mqzSbAPXM

cma 5y ago

> Power does not give up power. This isn't true, look at for example the nineteenth amendment (men giving up power).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> This isn't true, look at for example the nineteenth amendment (men giving up power). That wasn’t giving up power, it was trying to regain power by no longer claiming power through the abstraction of law that there was insufficient support to practically exercise and which claiming, as a result, merely diminished the general power of the State, because it reinforced in the public eye the gulf between law and power, reducing willingness to defer t9 the former in general.