4 ms·
I make the same observations, but I actually think that it's a brilliant move by Snowden et. al. The way they are releasing the information so far has been from
by rickhanlonii 13y ago
I make the same observations, but I actually think that it's a brilliant move by Snowden et. al. The way they are releasing the information so far has been from less to more troublesome. It's hard to say yet, but I would imagine that the first leak is on the lower spectrum of importance. But it was a great starter because it appealed to a larger audience given that it had powerpoint with big name companies on it, rather than the technical details that would be required to demonstrate the two points you mention.
As the leaks have moved on, the information has become progressively more concerning. Anyone who has followed this issue should have at least a vague idea of the caliber of information that could be coming (your post as an example). So, rather than releasing the big ticket items first, and having the rest of the issues make no impact in comparison, they're allowing as much information as possible to have it's greatest individual impact before moving on (not to mention the now well-discussed benefit of authorities lying themselves into corners trying to cover up the smaller issues).
In this way, they're priming the public so that we've spent months digesting the impact, and understanding the issue so that when we get (say) screenshots proving everything going over telecommunications is recorded, the public is prepared to understand and digest that fact quickly, and can move to action quicker--or even at all.
The more I think about it, the more I earnestly believe that this technique is the most effective methodology available to them and may be our one and only shot to stop it (keep in mind that once a subgroup of society reaches enough power and intelligence over the rest, there is literally nothing the rest of humanity could do to overthrow them; we can't dump tea in the ocean and fire guns at them anymore if they have drones and know everything about everyone).
He doesn't have to convince HN readers that this is worth stopping our daily lives for to stand against, he has to convince the general public.
With that in mind, the best thing we can do right now, is help them to prime the pump. Bring it up to everyone that will listen. Make the electorate informed. Because when the news comes--the one that we will need to act on--the public needs to be ready to hear it and move on it.
- jrochkind1 13y agogood points. although I'm not sure I'm confident that there is a 'big one' coming 'the one that we will need to act on' (if what we've already gotten isn't it) -- we will see. I am curious to hear more about the RAT stuff.
- sneak 13y ago> He doesn't have to convince HN readers that this is worth stopping our daily lives for to stand against, he has to convince the general public. The opinion of the general public doesn't matter. It's been being effectively managed for years, and that won't change now. The proles will never revolt. The fact is, these programs existing and being public knowledge to "foreign entities" (Obama's words), pose an existential threat to Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and any other US-based company that intends to make money handling the private data of those filthy foreigners (whom outnumber US citizens on the internet something like a dozen to one). Sure, tell everyone who will listen. But you'll find that most people don't give a fuck, and wouldn't know what to do with the information even if they did. This change, if it comes, will come from industry, as all major internal policy changes in US government have for decades.
- rickhanlonii 13y agoWhat you say may be true. But history has shown that people can give a fuck and policy change can come from the people--even recently with ballot initiatives. Corporations didn't overturn Ohio's SB5. Corporations didn't legalize and regulate cannabis in Colorado and Washington. Corporations didn't pass the Dream Act in Maryland. Corporations didn't pass multi-state initiatives to legalize gay marriage. People did. So independent of my opinion, there's demonstronably a non-trivial chance that you're wrong. And from chances like that, movements are born.
- sneak 13y ago> Corporations didn't legalize and regulate cannabis in Colorado and Washington. You're right: cannabis is still illegal in Colorado and Washington.