10 ms·

I don't get it. Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorshi

by dandare 12y ago

I don't get it. Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? We have very specific and numerous evidence that in the past the state used its powers to spy, threaten and discredit ideological opponents and activists, from M. L. King to all anti-war movements since Vietnam. Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. We need to stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not because of some silly naked pictures on your phone.

msabalau 12y ago
Governments have long had the ability to surveil activists and cultural figures. And activists have long understood this. Heck, Malcolm X joked about government hirelings back in 1964: "Brothers and sisters, friends and enemies: I just can't believe everyone in here is a friend, and I don't want to leave anybody out." Looking around, it seems to be that most people are and have been indifferent to issues of peace and social justice most of the time. They do care about naked picture on their phone. Given that activists have been able to work despite extensive surveillance, why would people whose issue is privacy focus on something that doesn't matter to most people when they can talk about things that many people do care about?
MetaCosm 12y ago
Because it resonates with everyone. Personal moments, privacy, intimacy ... these are things everyone understands, everyone can see how it might impact them. Talk about "misuse of power" and you lose the attention of the very people you are trying to convince. It might just be the trivialities (and peoples desire to protect themselves from them) that create more fury and action that talking about the real issues. I think it is smart of Snowden to take the tact that will resonate with the most people. It might be a sideshow, but it is a useful sideshow that might move the ball forward on the big issues.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Right. The civil rights movement in the U.S. also dealt with oppression and tyranny, but many of the actual protests revolved around bus seats and the ability to buy lunch.
  - MetaCosm 12y ago
    Really great point. Wish it has occurred to me.
bsbechtel 12y ago
For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you. If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. The difference between your parents and the State though, is that different individuals of varying trustworthiness move into and out of power. As this happens, eventually some bad actors will gain power, and those who depend on that established trust will be badly hurt.
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  > If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. We hear about child celebrities getting cheated out of their income by their parents. We know this can happen but I guess we assume they are exception rather than the norm?
  - bsbechtel 12y ago
    Of course it can happen, but think about YOUR own gut reaction if someone said this about YOUR parents. Unless you had an extremely traumatic childhood or are estranged from your parents, I'm guessing your response is "Not possible." It's a similar reaction to people's own governments (I guess you could call this Nationalism?). The problem is worse when you identify as an "R" or "D" and the same letter you identify as is in the White House (or whatever head of government position for your country). Paul Graham wrote an essay about this at one point, I believe.
skylan_q 12y ago
...the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? Every government devolves to this so it's unavoidable/unchangeable without widespread revolution. If the battle can't be won in a widespread fashion it has to be done locally. A person can encrypt and hide their own data, but they can't single-handledly end tyranny.
- vermontdevil 12y ago
  "Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Thomas Jefferson
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
It's not that you are wrong, it's that you are not completely correct. Yes, everything you said about the state was correct -- but, because digital information is so free and open, you are no longer making a choice about what the government should know or not, you're making the choice about what the entire universe should know. So sure, sign me up for the lessons we can draw from history. But we're creating something even more monstrous than that, if such a thing were possible. We're creating (or trying to create) a 4 billion person clan, where everybody knows everything. That's whacked in a way far beyond just destroying our lives and our children's lives. It's species-threatening. We have evolved to operate in small clans that compete for resources. There are a plethora of drawbacks to such a social structure, but that's who we are as a species. If nothing else, it gives us resilience: 99% of clans can make some evolutionary mistake, and as long as 1% does not, the species survives. Now we are all throwing in together, betting that some huge clan of billions that's never been tried before will be able to not make any evolutionary mistakes at all. It is unlikely beyond reason to believe this would be the case.
- parasubvert 12y ago
  Your argument doesn't follow. There is a large difference between removing secrets at large and cooperating at large. In practice we are seeing plenty of dividing lines.
lettergram 12y ago
I think it's easier to try to protect the way they we communicate than trying to over throw the government. Plus, something like 60%+ in the U.S. believe Snowden is a traitor. In other words, people in the U.S. trust their government. I do agree with you though. I recently had my family watch United Stats of Secrets a PBS Frontline episode on Netflix[1]. It was honestly the best description of the Snowden leaks I have seen, it explains everything better than I had expected. What was most interesting/disturbing was the NSA director with a big smirk on his face explaining how he manipulated congress. It definitely changed my families view of Snowden from "traitor" to "wow, I don't know if he is a hero, but he's no traitor." Over time, this is how public sentiment can alter to believing our government is tyrannical, but right now it's not enough. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec...
- DamnYuppie 12y ago
  Can you please provide a reference were 60% of the people believe Snowden is a traitor? I would be very suspect of any of those polls as they have the ability to now select a group of people who will generally provide the answers they are looking for. So please be very wary of any "poll" unless you are certain of the selection criteria and method of polling. Otherwise it is most likely just propaganda.
  - sigzero 12y ago
    I think 60% is low actually.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    As of 2014 it was closer to a 50-50 split: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/edward-snowden-poll_n_4175089.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/edward-snowden-poll...
forgottenpass 12y ago
Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? In the US, to sell a political idea, it has to be seen as non-ideological. The branding has to paint a message of at least a "reasonable" or "balanced" position. In the very best case the position should appear downright non-political to the people primed to believe them; often referred to as "common sense solutions". Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. This generally sounds like tin foil hat crazyness to people who have been taught to not have that thought by their political allegiances.
- dd36 12y ago
  The local law enforcer is inherently more dangerous than the foreigner. It's a simple function of points of contact. That's not to argue that we should not enforce laws.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It sounds like tin foil hat craziness because it has been wholly discredited by tin foil hatters.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodman 12y ago
    The same people that warned everybody that the state had the technical ability and disposition to monitor all communication? Can you see how your weakness for ad hominem might play right into a disinformation tactic as old as the state, the agent provocateur?
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      I didn't say they were wrong. Am I incorrect? Do you think it sounds like tin foil hat crazyness to people for a different reason?
coldtea 12y ago
>Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. Yeah, but Americans, after the sixties, do not understand politics at that level, and even believe that the US is the be all end all of states, and the "moral power" of the world, and such BS.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. The inverse is also generally true. The largest existential threat to the USA as a political entity is another civil war. It is currently the best protected country against invasion in history.
graycat 12y ago
> We need to stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not because of some silly naked pictures on your phone. Gee, you seem to be suggesting that here in the US we should adopt something like: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Ah, heck, how would the US ever adopt such a thing? And, even if we did, could we follow it? More along the same lines might be: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Such a policy would seem to guarantee the ability to gather on the Mall in DC to say things about the US involvement in Viet Nam, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, etc. For more, how about a policy such as: "The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" So, from this, the President could not declare war? Do we have freedom of speech to ask this question"? Ah, there's the old thought, to be strong, both muscles and constitutional rights need exercise! > naked pictures on your phone "Ah we got trouble, right here in River City. Trouble starts with a T, and that rhymes with a P, and that stands for" pictures and phone and naked pictures on a phone! "Oh we got trouble!". Nice speech. Good post.
mhuffman 12y ago
You would basically be demanding that people whom have power relinquish it. This has historically been hard to do. Instead, cleverly, you put external pressure from the masses to force the issue. The inverse is claiming child porn or terrorism to get the masses to give up privacy rights when they normally would be reluctant.

by dandare 12y ago

msabalau 12y ago

Governments have long had the ability to surveil activists and cultural figures. And activists have long understood this. Heck, Malcolm X joked about government hirelings back in 1964: "Brothers and sisters, friends and enemies: I just can't believe everyone in here is a friend, and I don't want to leave anybody out." Looking around, it seems to be that most people are and have been indifferent to issues of peace and social justice most of the time. They do care about naked picture on their phone. Given that activists have been able to work despite extensive surveillance, why would people whose issue is privacy focus on something that doesn't matter to most people when they can talk about things that many people do care about?

MetaCosm 12y ago

Because it resonates with everyone. Personal moments, privacy, intimacy ... these are things everyone understands, everyone can see how it might impact them. Talk about "misuse of power" and you lose the attention of the very people you are trying to convince. It might just be the trivialities (and peoples desire to protect themselves from them) that create more fury and action that talking about the real issues. I think it is smart of Snowden to take the tact that will resonate with the most people. It might be a sideshow, but it is a useful sideshow that might move the ball forward on the big issues.

humanrebar 12y ago
Right. The civil rights movement in the U.S. also dealt with oppression and tyranny, but many of the actual protests revolved around bus seats and the ability to buy lunch.
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  Really great point. Wish it has occurred to me.

bsbechtel 12y ago

For the average person, they've grown up in a world where they've learned through school, the media, their parents, and 95% of other sources of knowledge about this world that the State (in an abstract form, not with an R, D, or other political party affiliation tied to it because of those currently in power) is a protector, friend, keeper of order, etc. To attack or criticize the State (in abstract terms) and say that it could potentially abuse it's power, is like saying that your parents or some other loved one could potentially betray you. If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. The difference between your parents and the State though, is that different individuals of varying trustworthiness move into and out of power. As this happens, eventually some bad actors will gain power, and those who depend on that established trust will be badly hurt.

thanksgiving 12y ago
> If someone tells you your mother or father could potentially steal from you because their name is tied to your bank account, how does that make you feel? Do you feel like this person is right, or you do get defensive and say that could never possibly happen? Most defend their parents and their parents' trustworthiness. The same goes for their view of the State. We hear about child celebrities getting cheated out of their income by their parents. We know this can happen but I guess we assume they are exception rather than the norm?
- bsbechtel 12y ago
  Of course it can happen, but think about YOUR own gut reaction if someone said this about YOUR parents. Unless you had an extremely traumatic childhood or are estranged from your parents, I'm guessing your response is "Not possible." It's a similar reaction to people's own governments (I guess you could call this Nationalism?). The problem is worse when you identify as an "R" or "D" and the same letter you identify as is in the White House (or whatever head of government position for your country). Paul Graham wrote an essay about this at one point, I believe.

skylan_q 12y ago

...the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? Every government devolves to this so it's unavoidable/unchangeable without widespread revolution. If the battle can't be won in a widespread fashion it has to be done locally. A person can encrypt and hide their own data, but they can't single-handledly end tyranny.

vermontdevil 12y ago
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Thomas Jefferson

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

It's not that you are wrong, it's that you are not completely correct. Yes, everything you said about the state was correct -- but, because digital information is so free and open, you are no longer making a choice about what the government should know or not, you're making the choice about what the entire universe should know. So sure, sign me up for the lessons we can draw from history. But we're creating something even more monstrous than that, if such a thing were possible. We're creating (or trying to create) a 4 billion person clan, where everybody knows everything. That's whacked in a way far beyond just destroying our lives and our children's lives. It's species-threatening. We have evolved to operate in small clans that compete for resources. There are a plethora of drawbacks to such a social structure, but that's who we are as a species. If nothing else, it gives us resilience: 99% of clans can make some evolutionary mistake, and as long as 1% does not, the species survives. Now we are all throwing in together, betting that some huge clan of billions that's never been tried before will be able to not make any evolutionary mistakes at all. It is unlikely beyond reason to believe this would be the case.

parasubvert 12y ago
Your argument doesn't follow. There is a large difference between removing secrets at large and cooperating at large. In practice we are seeing plenty of dividing lines.

lettergram 12y ago

I think it's easier to try to protect the way they we communicate than trying to over throw the government. Plus, something like 60%+ in the U.S. believe Snowden is a traitor. In other words, people in the U.S. trust their government. I do agree with you though. I recently had my family watch United Stats of Secrets a PBS Frontline episode on Netflix[1]. It was honestly the best description of the Snowden leaks I have seen, it explains everything better than I had expected. What was most interesting/disturbing was the NSA director with a big smirk on his face explaining how he manipulated congress. It definitely changed my families view of Snowden from "traitor" to "wow, I don't know if he is a hero, but he's no traitor." Over time, this is how public sentiment can alter to believing our government is tyrannical, but right now it's not enough. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec...

DamnYuppie 12y ago
Can you please provide a reference were 60% of the people believe Snowden is a traitor? I would be very suspect of any of those polls as they have the ability to now select a group of people who will generally provide the answers they are looking for. So please be very wary of any "poll" unless you are certain of the selection criteria and method of polling. Otherwise it is most likely just propaganda.
- sigzero 12y ago
  I think 60% is low actually.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  As of 2014 it was closer to a 50-50 split: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/edward-snowden-poll_n_4175089.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/edward-snowden-poll...

forgottenpass 12y ago

Why is everyone (including Snowden) talking about personal moments, privacy, intimacy etc when the problem is clearly about tyranny, dictatorship and misuse of power? In the US, to sell a political idea, it has to be seen as non-ideological. The branding has to paint a message of at least a "reasonable" or "balanced" position. In the very best case the position should appear downright non-political to the people primed to believe them; often referred to as "common sense solutions". Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. This generally sounds like tin foil hat crazyness to people who have been taught to not have that thought by their political allegiances.

dd36 12y ago
The local law enforcer is inherently more dangerous than the foreigner. It's a simple function of points of contact. That's not to argue that we should not enforce laws.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 12y ago
It sounds like tin foil hat craziness because it has been wholly discredited by tin foil hatters.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- woodman 12y ago
  The same people that warned everybody that the state had the technical ability and disposition to monitor all communication? Can you see how your weakness for ad hominem might play right into a disinformation tactic as old as the state, the agent provocateur?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I didn't say they were wrong. Am I incorrect? Do you think it sounds like tin foil hat crazyness to people for a different reason?

coldtea 12y ago

>Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. Yeah, but Americans, after the sixties, do not understand politics at that level, and even believe that the US is the be all end all of states, and the "moral power" of the world, and such BS.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Since the dawn of history the "state" was always the biggest threat to the safety of it's "citizens", not external aggression. The inverse is also generally true. The largest existential threat to the USA as a political entity is another civil war. It is currently the best protected country against invasion in history.

graycat 12y ago

> We need to stay safe from our own state, that is why we must not give up our privacy, not because of some silly naked pictures on your phone. Gee, you seem to be suggesting that here in the US we should adopt something like: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Ah, heck, how would the US ever adopt such a thing? And, even if we did, could we follow it? More along the same lines might be: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Such a policy would seem to guarantee the ability to gather on the Mall in DC to say things about the US involvement in Viet Nam, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, etc. For more, how about a policy such as: "The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" So, from this, the President could not declare war? Do we have freedom of speech to ask this question"? Ah, there's the old thought, to be strong, both muscles and constitutional rights need exercise! > naked pictures on your phone "Ah we got trouble, right here in River City. Trouble starts with a T, and that rhymes with a P, and that stands for" pictures and phone and naked pictures on a phone! "Oh we got trouble!". Nice speech. Good post.

mhuffman 12y ago

You would basically be demanding that people whom have power relinquish it. This has historically been hard to do. Instead, cleverly, you put external pressure from the masses to force the issue. The inverse is claiming child porn or terrorism to get the masses to give up privacy rights when they normally would be reluctant.