3 ms·

"Now, Silicon Valley needs to join them." - because we otherwise approve of the snooping, but for this latest outrage? I'm honestly wondering - what's the othe

"Now, Silicon Valley needs to join them." - because we otherwise approve of the snooping, but for this latest outrage? I'm honestly wondering - what's the other side of this? Who's defending and explaining this? I have not seen an article that "takes the other side" in some time, and that might be a result of the echo chamber that is the bay area... Or it might be the result of an "intelligence community" that really IS in its own world; intentionally blocked from any outside observation and judgment, taking actions that, honestly, really don't have many if any supporters.

devx 13y ago
With people like the POTUS, the Chief of the Intelligence Committee, and half of Congress backing them, not to mention most of the military industrial complex, who needs "supporters"?
- JimboOmega 13y ago
  Well, right - so long as both the democrat party line and the republican party line are the same on the issue, there's really nothing to be done about it. My point is, though, that the question the article is posing - that it's time for us to ask: "Is it worth it?" has already been asked and answered with a resounding no! Even without the privacy breaches, the financial cost alone isn't justified. But the privacy breaches are huge and problematic too.
selmnoo 13y ago
In a way, we (or at least, the decision-makers in the valley at least) do approve of the snooping. Google did something very drastic when it was found out that the Chinese were looking into people's e-mails: they pulled out from China. They were lauded for this move: we all said it was courageous for a company to do this, it was morally correct, and so on we went with praise. But what are they going to do now with the knowledge from recent revelations? Pulling out would mean an end to the money coming in. Are they going to do that? Are they truly going to do something drastic, something substantial? I'm of the opinion that nothing will basically change. Having talked with many tech CEOs I've learned that the people making the decisions just don't care about this (and those that do, care about it less than they care about making money). What's more -- a lot openly declare this is needed for a functioning society -- John Doerr was on the verge of saying this in the Arrington interview. I might sound jaded and defeated when I say this, but I think this is really it. I don't think our future will have considerably less snooping going on, this will go on, little will change.
salgernon 13y ago
I periodically check out websites that traditionally have a bias other than my own and ran across this: http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/30/tech-at-night-even-dianne-feinstein-tells-it-like-it-is-about-edward-snowden-we-have-two-new-fcc-commissioners/ http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/30/tech-at-night-even-dianne... Whats ironic is that these folks call Snowden a traitor, putting them in the same camp as a Democratic Senator from the other side of the isle. I also find it funny that many of the ads on that site are for perpetual motion / free energy machines...
- hackula1 13y ago
  I find this similar to the endless push to buy gold from people who are supposed to be the exemplars of common sense economics.

devx 13y ago

With people like the POTUS, the Chief of the Intelligence Committee, and half of Congress backing them, not to mention most of the military industrial complex, who needs "supporters"?

JimboOmega 13y ago
Well, right - so long as both the democrat party line and the republican party line are the same on the issue, there's really nothing to be done about it. My point is, though, that the question the article is posing - that it's time for us to ask: "Is it worth it?" has already been asked and answered with a resounding no! Even without the privacy breaches, the financial cost alone isn't justified. But the privacy breaches are huge and problematic too.

selmnoo 13y ago

In a way, we (or at least, the decision-makers in the valley at least) do approve of the snooping. Google did something very drastic when it was found out that the Chinese were looking into people's e-mails: they pulled out from China. They were lauded for this move: we all said it was courageous for a company to do this, it was morally correct, and so on we went with praise. But what are they going to do now with the knowledge from recent revelations? Pulling out would mean an end to the money coming in. Are they going to do that? Are they truly going to do something drastic, something substantial? I'm of the opinion that nothing will basically change. Having talked with many tech CEOs I've learned that the people making the decisions just don't care about this (and those that do, care about it less than they care about making money). What's more -- a lot openly declare this is needed for a functioning society -- John Doerr was on the verge of saying this in the Arrington interview. I might sound jaded and defeated when I say this, but I think this is really it. I don't think our future will have considerably less snooping going on, this will go on, little will change.

salgernon 13y ago

I periodically check out websites that traditionally have a bias other than my own and ran across this: http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/30/tech-at-night-even-dianne-feinstein-tells-it-like-it-is-about-edward-snowden-we-have-two-new-fcc-commissioners/ http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/30/tech-at-night-even-dianne... Whats ironic is that these folks call Snowden a traitor, putting them in the same camp as a Democratic Senator from the other side of the isle. I also find it funny that many of the ads on that site are for perpetual motion / free energy machines...

hackula1 13y ago
I find this similar to the endless push to buy gold from people who are supposed to be the exemplars of common sense economics.