3 ms·

Given the bulk interception capabilities of countries on their own citizens the irony is they justify the powers because they don't use them? (except they do, j

Given the bulk interception capabilities of countries on their own citizens the irony is they justify the powers because they don't use them? (except they do, just not to support the country) The whole enterprise is illigitimate. Early in my career in security (many years pre-Snowden) I thought Echelon was a fun conspiracy theory and it was really just something less extreme with good people doing important work. I do not anymore. Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully, not unlike nuclear test bans and disarmament.

ganzuul 5y ago
> Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully, not unlike nuclear test bans and disarmament. The scientific community needs to wrest control from the spooks, IMO. Until we do democracy is make-believe.
toyg 5y ago
> Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully The reality is that the world is a bad place and these agencies are a necessary evil. When they fail in their duties, we have things like the Manchester Arena bombing, Charlie Hebdo, and so on and so forth. This does not mean they should be free to run amok, like GCHQ obviously has for decades now. There should be checks and balances, which are sorely lacking at the moment.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Yeah, disagree. You cannot stop chaos with bulk surveillance. Can't even get close, and slay human rights, and therefore humanity, in the process. See: China.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- motohagiography 5y ago
  The second greatest trick evil ever played on us was to convince us that it was necessary. They have become too powerful to not be held responsible and the order they were ostensibly intended to preserve has disintegrated as a direct consequence of their failure to allow it to evolve naturally, imo. Their capabilities and their influences on our own democratic processes are about as welcome as leftover minefields from forgotten conflicts, especially as many of them retire to write memoirs and mug for television presenters. They were a 20th century artifact of the nation state (which they have forfeited) and by all popular accounts now they seem to form a kind of seedy post-national shadow government engaged in protecting sympathetic capital flows. As ever it was, perhaps, but we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not their behavior is appropriate so much as whether we should tolerate their continued existence at all. Of course they're an easy straw man, but being the key source of deception in the world is neither necessary or sympathetic.

ganzuul 5y ago

> Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully, not unlike nuclear test bans and disarmament. The scientific community needs to wrest control from the spooks, IMO. Until we do democracy is make-believe.

toyg 5y ago

> Our societies should find a way to put an end to these agencies peacefully The reality is that the world is a bad place and these agencies are a necessary evil. When they fail in their duties, we have things like the Manchester Arena bombing, Charlie Hebdo, and so on and so forth. This does not mean they should be free to run amok, like GCHQ obviously has for decades now. There should be checks and balances, which are sorely lacking at the moment.

atatatat 5y ago
Yeah, disagree. You cannot stop chaos with bulk surveillance. Can't even get close, and slay human rights, and therefore humanity, in the process. See: China.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 5y ago
The second greatest trick evil ever played on us was to convince us that it was necessary. They have become too powerful to not be held responsible and the order they were ostensibly intended to preserve has disintegrated as a direct consequence of their failure to allow it to evolve naturally, imo. Their capabilities and their influences on our own democratic processes are about as welcome as leftover minefields from forgotten conflicts, especially as many of them retire to write memoirs and mug for television presenters. They were a 20th century artifact of the nation state (which they have forfeited) and by all popular accounts now they seem to form a kind of seedy post-national shadow government engaged in protecting sympathetic capital flows. As ever it was, perhaps, but we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not their behavior is appropriate so much as whether we should tolerate their continued existence at all. Of course they're an easy straw man, but being the key source of deception in the world is neither necessary or sympathetic.