4 ms·

I'm afraid you've misunderstood on several levels. My language was careful, your reading was not. First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program p

by Arnor 13y ago

I'm afraid you've misunderstood on several levels. My language was careful, your reading was not. First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program positive or negative. I have not "decided what [I will] find at the other end..." I am critical of the programs, but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, but I make no mention of additional goals or side effects. These goals and side effects are part of the larger discussion that can only be productive when we take a deep breath and set aside our preconceived notions of the programs. This is as difficult to me as it is to anyone. My initial reaction to the news of these programs was visceral. I was angry and frustrated. Now my frustration has been rechanneled to the sadly fruitless discussion. In short, there are effects outside the primary goal (of saving lives) that are bad and should be criticized. If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. I won't respond to what is "often so conveniently implied" since I never implied any such thing.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
--- but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. --- Fair enough, but then why take the easy way out of the discussion, and instead of addressing individual posts guilty of the above in your opinion directly, but just fire that salvo into the room? Okay, you're free to do that, to summarize and save yourself time, but at least know that I read a lot of ("you're all wrong because of strawman strawman") in the last weeks on HN, and reacted more polemic to your post than maybe was called for. Apologies for that. But still, I disagree. "Orwellian" to me is about language and the resulting inability to reason, not telescreens and 5 minutes of hate. We live on a planet were Saddam was attacked in the windfall of 9/11, while huge chunk of the American people believed he had something to do with it. It's not like administration said "hey, we need this war, but we don't want you to support it for false reasons, Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11, he's just this super epic dictator and weapons wiz". That would still have been bullshit deserving of a hanging "if the Nuremberg laws were applied", but it would have been a nice gesture. But no. They used it passively. Result of the whole exercise, so far that is? More dead people than the whole history of terrorism against the US several times over. While talking about democracy, posing on an aircraft carrier, all that stuff. Not that I can blame the NSA for that, I don't. But there is no Orwellian institution in an otherwise sane society, it's all connected. The NSA is just one aspect of it, not even a very interesting one IMHO. But hey, you do recall "Total Information Awareness", and how they scrambled to change the name when they realized they were too honest, right? So the NSA certainly does Orwellian in-house, too. But even when they don't, they are a tool in the toolbox of an Orwellian state. The only way to deny that would be to say they are actually independant of it, which would be a problem also. So there you go.. Even when I say NSA, I don't mean to exclude anyone else. In Germany the Verfassungsschutz (literally "constitution protection") is basically the sole reason the NPD (neonazi party) can't be dealt with, because it and the neonazi scene is so filled with undercover operatives. That got so bad that the cops in Sachsen-Anhalt, to be able to raid them without forewarning, decided to not inform the Verfassungsschutz anymore ( German, but at least it's source: http://www.taz.de/!103340/ http://www.taz.de/!103340/ ). I don't know if it's strictly Orwellian, but it's fucking crazy, and fucking evil. Well-meant, banal evil; the kind that actually really matters, the big killer. Suicide bombers and killing sprees are horrible, flying planes into a building I still haven't fully wrapped my head around -- but all that still vanishes compared to the killings committed in total by perfectly calm, perfectly well-meaning people, operating strictly within the law. --- Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, --- Which in turn implies benevolence. Instead of how centers of power act, in self-interest. How many people are killed by international terrorism -- I mean the kind the NSA idly watches because it's the US doing it? And how many such deaths does the NSA credibly avert? Finally, how many people could be clothed, fed and sheltered by 1% the budget of the NSA? I mean, if saving lifes is really the "primary" (why in quotes?) goal, why not at least A/B test a little? --- If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. --- Yes, but I also find backlashes to progress. Consider the 60s and the backlash to that. I see that were people were robbed and killed in the past, they're now simply left behind in the ever faster growing gap between the super rich and the rest. I see much energy with those who fear and are greedy, and much aimlessness or premature celebration of those who love. I see the threshold for how many people you need to fool or blackmail or have on your side for complete, endless control sink rapidly as technology progresses, too. But still, I didn't loose sight of the good. I make sure to look at clouds and smile at dogs every day. I've met nice cops, I've seen brutal ones, I know bureaucrats who are just a little slow, but friendly, and those who harbour resentment towards anyone not as bald or fat as they. And especially that I would say quite a bunch of those, and soldiers too, have... serious issues... makes me feel for those who are their fellows who are decent people. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and even if none of my post is about "the good stuff", and disagrees with you on many points, you can believe me that I hear you on this, and agree. Sometimes I say it myself, but sometimes I don't think it's helpful. Imagine there is a burning house, we need help putting out the fire, and some guy says "but consider all those houses that are NOT burning". Even if it's well meant it can be irritating. I don't believe in collective punishment or blame, but I DO believe in those who are not meant getting out of the way instead of shielding those I'm trying to get at, or are being used by third parties as a shield even. I mean, if they can live with collateral damage meaning people being murdered utterly dead, they can live with me mistakenly considering someone a mediocre cog in a crappy machine, one would think. Not even anyone I consider a "perpetrator" I really wish evil on, I don't care for punishment as much as about self-defense. But you can't forgive the attacker until you stopped the attack, because that would be just bending over. So ideally, quite a bunch of people really ought to be lead right up to the guillotine and then forgiven. I see no other way that is not a farce and pissing on graves. But when it comes to "just" words: human history might go on for a looong time, and anyone who could take offense, no matter how bad they feel about it, will be long dead when the principles of power and rationalization will still be the same. Just read the old testament, this stuff is old as dirt. As long as there is recorded history, the world has been Orwellian as far as I can tell. I'm not so naive to think I will see the end of it, but I'll throw my weight into the scale regardless. I'm calling it, and screw anyone who doesn't like it because it applies to their little parcel of the world as well. I'm sorry if my post is so long and incoherent, and also if it seems unfriendly or is full of typos, but I've been awake for a full 29 hours, and I'm beginning to feel it. Maybe I should have posted tomorrow but here goes. Don't take it to personally where I do you wrong, I don't know you.
WayneDB 13y ago
First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program positive or negative. Yes, it does. You said, "...the surveillance programs are not evil either." Also, you said "...the primary goal of these programs is to save lives." - which does indicate a judgement since "saving lives" is empirically a good thing...even though you really don't know the true purpose, only what you've been told. Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, but I make no mention of additional goals or side effects You don't know that. You have been told that, but you don't know it. ...what is "often so conveniently implied" since I never implied any such thing. Yes, you did. You said (apparently speaking to the entire forum) that, "Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives." - as if that nugget of "knowledge" about the alleged purpose of those programs should override any cynicism...implying that the general cynicism here is not already grounded in knowledge. Actions speak louder than words. That's why nobody believes these pigs. It's not like they all woke up one day and said, "I should be cynical about this government thing."

by Arnor 13y ago

PavlovsCat 13y ago

--- but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. --- Fair enough, but then why take the easy way out of the discussion, and instead of addressing individual posts guilty of the above in your opinion directly, but just fire that salvo into the room? Okay, you're free to do that, to summarize and save yourself time, but at least know that I read a lot of ("you're all wrong because of strawman strawman") in the last weeks on HN, and reacted more polemic to your post than maybe was called for. Apologies for that. But still, I disagree. "Orwellian" to me is about language and the resulting inability to reason, not telescreens and 5 minutes of hate. We live on a planet were Saddam was attacked in the windfall of 9/11, while huge chunk of the American people believed he had something to do with it. It's not like administration said "hey, we need this war, but we don't want you to support it for false reasons, Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11, he's just this super epic dictator and weapons wiz". That would still have been bullshit deserving of a hanging "if the Nuremberg laws were applied", but it would have been a nice gesture. But no. They used it passively. Result of the whole exercise, so far that is? More dead people than the whole history of terrorism against the US several times over. While talking about democracy, posing on an aircraft carrier, all that stuff. Not that I can blame the NSA for that, I don't. But there is no Orwellian institution in an otherwise sane society, it's all connected. The NSA is just one aspect of it, not even a very interesting one IMHO. But hey, you do recall "Total Information Awareness", and how they scrambled to change the name when they realized they were too honest, right? So the NSA certainly does Orwellian in-house, too. But even when they don't, they are a tool in the toolbox of an Orwellian state. The only way to deny that would be to say they are actually independant of it, which would be a problem also. So there you go.. Even when I say NSA, I don't mean to exclude anyone else. In Germany the Verfassungsschutz (literally "constitution protection") is basically the sole reason the NPD (neonazi party) can't be dealt with, because it and the neonazi scene is so filled with undercover operatives. That got so bad that the cops in Sachsen-Anhalt, to be able to raid them without forewarning, decided to not inform the Verfassungsschutz anymore ( German, but at least it's source: http://www.taz.de/!103340/ http://www.taz.de/!103340/ ). I don't know if it's strictly Orwellian, but it's fucking crazy, and fucking evil. Well-meant, banal evil; the kind that actually really matters, the big killer. Suicide bombers and killing sprees are horrible, flying planes into a building I still haven't fully wrapped my head around -- but all that still vanishes compared to the killings committed in total by perfectly calm, perfectly well-meaning people, operating strictly within the law. --- Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, --- Which in turn implies benevolence. Instead of how centers of power act, in self-interest. How many people are killed by international terrorism -- I mean the kind the NSA idly watches because it's the US doing it? And how many such deaths does the NSA credibly avert? Finally, how many people could be clothed, fed and sheltered by 1% the budget of the NSA? I mean, if saving lifes is really the "primary" (why in quotes?) goal, why not at least A/B test a little? --- If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. --- Yes, but I also find backlashes to progress. Consider the 60s and the backlash to that. I see that were people were robbed and killed in the past, they're now simply left behind in the ever faster growing gap between the super rich and the rest. I see much energy with those who fear and are greedy, and much aimlessness or premature celebration of those who love. I see the threshold for how many people you need to fool or blackmail or have on your side for complete, endless control sink rapidly as technology progresses, too. But still, I didn't loose sight of the good. I make sure to look at clouds and smile at dogs every day. I've met nice cops, I've seen brutal ones, I know bureaucrats who are just a little slow, but friendly, and those who harbour resentment towards anyone not as bald or fat as they. And especially that I would say quite a bunch of those, and soldiers too, have... serious issues... makes me feel for those who are their fellows who are decent people. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and even if none of my post is about "the good stuff", and disagrees with you on many points, you can believe me that I hear you on this, and agree. Sometimes I say it myself, but sometimes I don't think it's helpful. Imagine there is a burning house, we need help putting out the fire, and some guy says "but consider all those houses that are NOT burning". Even if it's well meant it can be irritating. I don't believe in collective punishment or blame, but I DO believe in those who are not meant getting out of the way instead of shielding those I'm trying to get at, or are being used by third parties as a shield even. I mean, if they can live with collateral damage meaning people being murdered utterly dead, they can live with me mistakenly considering someone a mediocre cog in a crappy machine, one would think. Not even anyone I consider a "perpetrator" I really wish evil on, I don't care for punishment as much as about self-defense. But you can't forgive the attacker until you stopped the attack, because that would be just bending over. So ideally, quite a bunch of people really ought to be lead right up to the guillotine and then forgiven. I see no other way that is not a farce and pissing on graves. But when it comes to "just" words: human history might go on for a looong time, and anyone who could take offense, no matter how bad they feel about it, will be long dead when the principles of power and rationalization will still be the same. Just read the old testament, this stuff is old as dirt. As long as there is recorded history, the world has been Orwellian as far as I can tell. I'm not so naive to think I will see the end of it, but I'll throw my weight into the scale regardless. I'm calling it, and screw anyone who doesn't like it because it applies to their little parcel of the world as well. I'm sorry if my post is so long and incoherent, and also if it seems unfriendly or is full of typos, but I've been awake for a full 29 hours, and I'm beginning to feel it. Maybe I should have posted tomorrow but here goes. Don't take it to personally where I do you wrong, I don't know you.

WayneDB 13y ago

First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program positive or negative. Yes, it does. You said, "...the surveillance programs are not evil either." Also, you said "...the primary goal of these programs is to save lives." - which does indicate a judgement since "saving lives" is empirically a good thing...even though you really don't know the true purpose, only what you've been told. Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, but I make no mention of additional goals or side effects You don't know that. You have been told that, but you don't know it. ...what is "often so conveniently implied" since I never implied any such thing. Yes, you did. You said (apparently speaking to the entire forum) that, "Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives." - as if that nugget of "knowledge" about the alleged purpose of those programs should override any cynicism...implying that the general cynicism here is not already grounded in knowledge. Actions speak louder than words. That's why nobody believes these pigs. It's not like they all woke up one day and said, "I should be cynical about this government thing."