6 ms·

I believe we are watching agitprop being masterfully and skillfully applied to the positioning on this whole metadata issue, even here among the cognescenti, by

I believe we are watching agitprop being masterfully and skillfully applied to the positioning on this whole metadata issue, even here among the cognescenti, by the powers in charge of these meetings. This is a setup for us to all start thinking "oh, metadata doesn't really mean anything". 'It doesn't mean anything, because its obviously not useful.' So .. here's my delegitprop thought: If today, the line is "Feds are not achieving anything with metadata", then tomorrow .. or maybe a little later .. the line will become "metadata doesn't achieve anything". So we'll see. Who is asking the politicians if they actually do know what the word 'meta-' means? Because .. those who are collecting "meta-"data can facetiously use that word from multiple angles .. and these totalitarians (call them what they are, folks) are fastidious about never using words in this realm that they do not have clearly, internally at least, defined. The NSA has its own dictionary of the English language, for internal use. It is used to promote internal doctrine, and it is used externally to position. Information positioning is a refined, pure, utter science in this realm. So this NSA dictionary should be on the table in front of any Senator, doing their job, in these meetings. I highly doubt it is relevant what I think, but the only way out of this mess is a total dox'ing of the agency, and a replacement with something else ..

pyre 13y ago
If it has no impact then: 1) Why are we wasting money collecting and storing it? 2) Why are we wasting time looking at it? This does not muddy the waters to anyone with critical-thinking skills. Why does this invasion of my privacy need to happen if it is unable to achieve its own stated goals? Edit: My point was that people should be asking these questions, and these aren't hard questions to ask. Even just asking "if this has no impact then why are we wasting money" should be an easy question to ask for fiscal conservatives. I really don't see many people going the route of thinking, "this is ineffective, therefore we should just keep doing it because the metadata doesn't matter." I don't understand why people see me asking these questions and automatically assume that I'm attacking them and defending the NSA or something.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  Totalitarianism. Understood?
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  It has no impact on catching terrorists. That's the article claim. It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it.
  - pyre 13y ago
    The impact may not be much though. People have wasted much time, money and effort on endeavors based on faulty premises just because they never took the time to evaluate their situation.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      At a guess, it is a measurement tool for analysing cause and effect with the aim of not being caught out by political mass movements. If you want to model a society thermodynamically, you need a lot of data. But then I have always been a fan of Asimov's Foundation.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it. Its impact is in the government's ability to rule people by fear, once they decide to flip the switch of outright totalitarianism. That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. It's not about catching "terrorists", it's about keeping the general populace in check.
    - pyre 13y ago
      > That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. That may be the eventual place that it ends up, but the road to hell is easily paved with good intentions. Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country are drunk on the information that the fire hose provides, and fear what tidbit of info they might miss if it is turned off?
anigbrowl 13y ago
First sentence of the article: A new paper published Monday by the New America Foundation demonstrably destroys the US government claim that bulk metadata collection is useful. ...which is the polar opposite of what you are asserting, demonstrating that you chose to comment on the headline without reading the article at all.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  I read the article - I'm commenting on the article. The "New America Foundation" is putting forward the mechanics of the very positioning I'm talking about. So, did you comment on my comment without thinking about my comment?
whatevsbro 13y ago
> So this NSA dictionary should be on the table in front of any Senator, doing their job, in these meetings. I highly doubt it is relevant what I think, but the only way out of this mess is a total dox'ing of the agency, and a replacement with something else You're overlooking the fact that the senators aren't against whatever the NSA is doing. Most of them anyway, and the rest are kept in check or neutralized. But you're right about everything else you said. The senators' (and congressmen's) job is not to serve the people - they're serving the corporations that bought them, and some shadowy figures behind the scenes. Of course, they're in the game to climb higher in the hierarchy of power themselves, so.. all is well from their point of view.

pyre 13y ago

If it has no impact then: 1) Why are we wasting money collecting and storing it? 2) Why are we wasting time looking at it? This does not muddy the waters to anyone with critical-thinking skills. Why does this invasion of my privacy need to happen if it is unable to achieve its own stated goals? Edit: My point was that people should be asking these questions, and these aren't hard questions to ask. Even just asking "if this has no impact then why are we wasting money" should be an easy question to ask for fiscal conservatives. I really don't see many people going the route of thinking, "this is ineffective, therefore we should just keep doing it because the metadata doesn't matter." I don't understand why people see me asking these questions and automatically assume that I'm attacking them and defending the NSA or something.

fit2rule 13y ago
Totalitarianism. Understood?
marcosdumay 13y ago
It has no impact on catching terrorists. That's the article claim. It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it.
- pyre 13y ago
  The impact may not be much though. People have wasted much time, money and effort on endeavors based on faulty premises just because they never took the time to evaluate their situation.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    At a guess, it is a measurement tool for analysing cause and effect with the aim of not being caught out by political mass movements. If you want to model a society thermodynamically, you need a lot of data. But then I have always been a fan of Asimov's Foundation.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it. Its impact is in the government's ability to rule people by fear, once they decide to flip the switch of outright totalitarianism. That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. It's not about catching "terrorists", it's about keeping the general populace in check.
  - pyre 13y ago
    > That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. That may be the eventual place that it ends up, but the road to hell is easily paved with good intentions. Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country are drunk on the information that the fire hose provides, and fear what tidbit of info they might miss if it is turned off?

anigbrowl 13y ago

First sentence of the article: A new paper published Monday by the New America Foundation demonstrably destroys the US government claim that bulk metadata collection is useful. ...which is the polar opposite of what you are asserting, demonstrating that you chose to comment on the headline without reading the article at all.

fit2rule 13y ago
I read the article - I'm commenting on the article. The "New America Foundation" is putting forward the mechanics of the very positioning I'm talking about. So, did you comment on my comment without thinking about my comment?

whatevsbro 13y ago

> So this NSA dictionary should be on the table in front of any Senator, doing their job, in these meetings. I highly doubt it is relevant what I think, but the only way out of this mess is a total dox'ing of the agency, and a replacement with something else You're overlooking the fact that the senators aren't against whatever the NSA is doing. Most of them anyway, and the rest are kept in check or neutralized. But you're right about everything else you said. The senators' (and congressmen's) job is not to serve the people - they're serving the corporations that bought them, and some shadowy figures behind the scenes. Of course, they're in the game to climb higher in the hierarchy of power themselves, so.. all is well from their point of view.