Frankly I'm skeptical that privacy has done all that much for modern civilization. Most of the modern uprisings and civil rights victories are steadily being won in part through the power of deanonymizing the participants of both sides. Its much harder to ignore a person then a mob.
There's a subtle but important distinction between no one being possibly able to see what you do, and someone taking that one facet and using their hegemonic power to broadcast it and target people. The latter is more problematic: the Google Hangouts "so and so endorsed this product!" is a really troubling modern example of the latter.
I'd recommend talking to one of the trans members of D&D. They've discussed how important privacy is for them in the past.
The trans members of D&D aren't defined by no one being able to see what they do. But they are defined by expecting the type of privacy one gets from being in a crowd - the expectation they won't suddenly be on jumbo-tron.
If we're not going to bother defining what we want to accomplish, then the only thing we're accomplishing is feeling smug while nothing changes.
The issue is that thanks to the aggressive data collection of mostly private groups, the anonymity of the crowd no longer exists.
Frankly I'm skeptical that privacy has done all that much for modern civilization. Most of the modern uprisings and civil rights victories are steadily being won in part through the power of deanonymizing the participants of both sides. Its much harder to ignore a person then a mob.
There's a subtle but important distinction between no one being possibly able to see what you do, and someone taking that one facet and using their hegemonic power to broadcast it and target people. The latter is more problematic: the Google+ "so and so endorsed this product!" is a really troubling modern example of the latter.
I'd recommend talking to one of the trans members of D&D. They've discussed how important privacy is for them in the past.
The trans members of D&D aren't defined by no one being able to see what they do. But they are defined by expecting the type of privacy one gets from being in a crowd - the expectation they won't suddenly be on jumbo-tron.
If we're not going to bother defining what we want to accomplish, then the only thing we're accomplishing is feeling smug while nothing changes.
The issue is that thanks to the aggressive data collection of mostly private groups, the anonymity of the crowd no longer exists.
The anonymity of the crowd only matters if they're rebroadcasting it in a targeted way. By and large that continues to be true - no one is making the coffee-shop conversations available online, even though they probably have them.
See my note on Google+ for a situation where that's compromised. Trying to write laws where we pretend it makes sense to stop people collecting data like this is absurd - not least because you quickly bandwagon every type of idiot privacy advocate to the problem.
I would much rather we target specific issues, such as the exchange of non-anonymized data, or the rewriting of privacy terms while you have someone's data already.
Another reason privacy is extremely important is that if you wanted to ruin somebody's life, say, because they are your political opponent, violating their privacy would be a fairly easy way to do so.
Everybody has something they would rather everybody not know. Everybody.
This isn't hypothetical, either - read up on what the LaRoucheites did to Eagleton in 72 (which is another reason that their presence at the rally was offensive and compromised it.)
Effort involved in tapping somebody's social media data to find out if someone's birth was illegitimate: Lots.
Effort involved in just claiming somebody's certificate of live birth is illegitimate: Practically none.
If you want to ruin somebody's life that badly, why do you even have to bother with researching the truth in the first place? See also: Kerry, Swift Boats; McCain, Black Child.
ETA: At the levels of NSA investment, mining information (in any aspect) is primarily because the information itself is valuable - not because it can be used as a means to an end. Finding out that someone is slipping funds to Al Qaeda, or is going to try to veto a UN security resolution, is not typically used for the purposes of blackmail or manipulation but to limit or stop those actions. There may certainly be cases where the opportunity arises to expose dirty laundry because it serves a purpose, but I'm quite skeptical of the claim that this is a primary motive for information collection - the same result can be achieved with much less effort and without the risk of exposing your information channels by just lying.
Anonymity of the crowd was always an illusion. Its just become a thinner and thinner one. All the shit I would try to dig up on someone via a google is what a private detective would have done in years past. It's not like Sears-Roebuck didn't have records off all the purchases people were having shipped to them via trains.
This would still all be terribly interesting were it not for the fact that "mass surveillance by the government" is being held up in direct opposition to "mass surveillance by a private multinational corporation".
I don’t think it’s called spying when you willingly give your data to the corporations.
If you’re taking about datamining, that’s a different subject, and I’m not sure how it relates.
I wouldn't disagree with the notion that corporate surveillance from the biggest data-collection corporations would be something we'd like to curtail, or at least make more challenging, even in the face of meaningful consent (maybe read the next iTunes EULA agreement?). Personally, I don't think this diminishes the argument that government surveillance from the biggest security apparatus in the world (by far the United States intelligence and security departments) would be something worth curtailing. They're not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary, seeing how we're well aware that the same government entities work close with those data-collection corporations (Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google) to obtain the information for their stated goal: national security.
The iTunes EULA and FB's obsessions leaves something to be desired, but on the flip side--spying on tens of millions of French people because via the quiet consent of them insisting on using cell phones and email--doesn't hold up great either (if it is the case--optimists would argue it isn't, I think). The public argument (not on this forum, but in society presently), is "Hey, we need to seriously consider the limits to spying domestically, but hey, fuck those tens of millions of German and French people. If they didn't want to get spied on, they ought to communicate through carrier pigeons." Of course, I'm a foreign national living in the US, so I've resigned myself as being at a higher level of suspicion if the suspicion exists.
We did not spy on millions of French or German people.
On the other side of it. On the scale of "worried" to "no fucks" i know which side of the line foreign nations having my information is. I mean corporations can advertise to me and report me to my govt/friends and my govt can lock me up(wont but like theoretical tyrannical govt). But foreign govts can't do anything to me even if they cared
We did not spy on millions of French or German people.
On the other side of it. On the scale of "worried" to "no fucks" i know which side of the line foreign nations having my information is. I mean corporations can advertise to me and report me to my govt/friends and my govt can lock me up(wont but like theoretical tyrannical govt). But foreign govts can't do anything to me even if they cared
I'm playing Devil's Advocate because I mostly agree with you.
There is some blackmail motive isn't THAT to much of a stretch. Honey pots are a proven technique, as is leverage on an individual...i.e. we'll make your financial problems / drunk driving / etc go away in exchange for a 'favor'. When a foreign government doesn't have to orchestrate the impropriety and instead has that handed to them, it makes the odds of succeeding that much better. Less moving parts - if you can make someone give up company secrets by threatening to forward the dick pics they sent their mistress to their spouse, no need to have a hooker in the right room with cameras at the right time, etc.
Still, that's relatively minor.
I think the bigger concern - at least outside the US - is where you say 'foreign govts can't do anything to me even if they cared'. When you look at the way the United States has operated in the past decade or so, with things like targeted drone strikes and extraordinary rendition, a legitimate argument can be made that yes - a foreign government CAN do something. Lots of people travel internationally.
Now, at the same time, mix-ups can happen either way. If you're a private citizen who isn't doing anything particularly wrong (mistress on the side, cheating on your taxes a little, those kinds of things) it probably doesn't make much of a difference and shouldn't. But if you're a head engineer or CEO of an important company - say, you are a system admin at Verisign, or are a head engineer at Siemens, I can see some kind of legitimate fear that you'll be pressured using that mundane intelligence.
Another minor thing - it's unlikely, but I recall reading that when the SAS troops were captured in Iraq during Desert Storm, Iraq had scarily accurate intelligence on them. Things like where they / their parents / their families lived, their kids schedules / friends, those kinds of things. I can also see someone being concerned in that situation, simply because there is a dossier on them sitting on a network somewhere that could be exploited in the future.
If you're going to say international surveillance is a danger because the US is operating with impunity firing missiles into your country, I think you have your priorities wrong.
If you're going to say international surveillance is a danger because the US is operating with impunity firing missiles into your country, I think you have your priorities wrong.
I'm not saying it IS a danger.
I'm saying that I can see the reasoning behind someone seeing it as a danger, and why a statement like 'a foreign government can't do anything' may fall on deaf ears and not be considered the end all to the discussion.
Besides, it's not an either / or situation. Someone could potentially consider both the international surveillance and the missiles to be a danger and object to both.
I could even see a rational position where someone believes that they are much more likely to prevent that international surveillance than the drone strikes. Which, in turn makes it less likely for the US to operate with impunity (due to difficulties locating / tracking targets). By undermining the ability of the US to operate with impunity due to lack of intelligence, they effectively kill two birds with one stone.
It's hard to approach reasonably. If the charge rose that Russian, Chinese, or South Korean authorities were collecting and data-charting tens or hundreds of millions of emails, I don't think the American population would be pleased, to put it mildly. They wouldn't be screaming for war probably, but neither are people in Germany.
It's hard to approach reasonably. If the charge rose that Russian, Chinese, or South Korean authorities were collecting and data-charting tens or hundreds of millions of emails, I don't think the American population would be pleased, to put it mildly. They wouldn't be screaming for war probably, but neither are people in Germany.
And it may not even be the case anyway.
Frankly if you don't assume those things are happening you are nuts, see. More over everyone seems to think this level of espionage is new, it's not. Its like people forgot that the entire cold war ever happened. All that has changed is instead of agents on the streets of East/West Berlin it is hackers in office buildings.
It's hard to approach reasonably. If the charge rose that Russian, Chinese, or South Korean authorities were collecting and data-charting tens or hundreds of millions of emails, I don't think the American population would be pleased, to put it mildly. They wouldn't be screaming for war probably, but neither are people in Germany.
And it may not even be the case anyway.
Frankly if you don't assume those things are happening you are nuts, see. More over everyone seems to think this level of espionage is new, it's not. Its like people forgot that the entire cold war ever happened. All that has changed is instead of agents on the streets of East/West Berlin it is hackers in office buildings.
That's not exactly a great...wikipedia...article, and even then, while it would be problematic, it's not what was described (and actually corresponds quite fittingly with our past complaints about Chinese espionage).
Then again, I suppose it's just a matter of time before the Chinese are intercepting hundreds of millions of emails in their equivalent of the Utah data collection center, so we might as well get used to it.
EDIT: Also, I guess China could just say, emphatically, "No, we're not." And that would be that. Get a hint, France.
It's hard to approach reasonably. If the charge rose that Russian, Chinese, or South Korean authorities were collecting and data-charting tens or hundreds of millions of emails, I don't think the American population would be pleased, to put it mildly. They wouldn't be screaming for war probably, but neither are people in Germany.
And it may not even be the case anyway.
Frankly if you don't assume those things are happening you are nuts, see. More over everyone seems to think this level of espionage is new, it's not. Its like people forgot that the entire cold war ever happened. All that has changed is instead of agents on the streets of East/West Berlin it is hackers in office buildings.
That's not exactly a great...wikipedia...article, and even then, while it would be problematic, it's not what was described (and actually corresponds quite fittingly with our past complaints about Chinese espionage).
Then again, I suppose it's just a matter of time before the Chinese are intercepting hundreds of millions of emails in their equivalent of the Utah data collection center, so we might as well get used to it.
EDIT: Also, I guess China could just say, emphatically, "No, we're not." And that would be that. Get a hint, France.
I give it 10 years before China has their own facility. Oddly enough in Utah.
It's hard to approach reasonably. If the charge rose that Russian, Chinese, or South Korean authorities were collecting and data-charting tens or hundreds of millions of emails, I don't think the American population would be pleased, to put it mildly. They wouldn't be screaming for war probably, but neither are people in Germany.
And it may not even be the case anyway.
Frankly if you don't assume those things are happening you are nuts, see. More over everyone seems to think this level of espionage is new, it's not. Its like people forgot that the entire cold war ever happened. All that has changed is instead of agents on the streets of East/West Berlin it is hackers in office buildings.
That's not exactly a great...wikipedia...article, and even then, while it would be problematic, it's not what was described (and actually corresponds quite fittingly with our past complaints about Chinese espionage).
Then again, I suppose it's just a matter of time before the Chinese are intercepting hundreds of millions of emails in their equivalent of the Utah data collection center, so we might as well get used to it.
EDIT: Also, I guess China could just say, emphatically, "No, we're not." And that would be that. Get a hint, France.
I give it 10 years before China has their own facility. Oddly enough in Utah.
I wish that there was some discernible motivation in all of this beyond getting their names in the papers.
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I wish that there was some discernible motivation in all of this beyond getting their names in the papers.
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
His vision of foreign policy is also horribly... I'll go with simplistic.
I wish that there was some discernible motivation in all of this beyond getting their names in the papers.
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
His vision of foreign policy is also horribly... I'll go with simplistic.
I wish that there was some discernible motivation in all of this beyond getting their names in the papers.
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
His vision of foreign policy is also horribly... I'll go with simplistic.
I wish that there was some discernible motivation in all of this beyond getting their names in the papers.
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
His vision of foreign policy is also horribly... I'll go with simplistic.
I'm glad that the US has no intention of clemency.
Seriously, I hope he rots in Russian IT hell for the rest of his life.
I hope that when he inevitably pisses off the Russian government, they transfer him to a tech support facility in Pevek, rather than ship him back here.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
(One of the least discussed aspects of this has been that the world leaders most vociferous in their complaints on US spying also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
(One of the least discussed aspects of this has been that the world leaders most vociferous in their complaints on US spying also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
Color me absolutely shocked. Also, I figured that second part was a given. There's a reason why the current economic narrative of the BRICs is "Not as independent and secure as we thought"
I got way too invested and passionate in the last thread, so I'm reading this thread and will chime in if I feel like it will actually matter. But I do want to ask if we can stop using phrases like "cryptonerds". Because to me, it comes across as dismissive of somebody who actually may know more about cryptography than you do. It might not be what you mean, but it just isn't a useful term to throw out there. It's like the Surveillance State Thread equivalent of "neckbeard".
Sorry, but no. The reason I use the term is to point out that these people aren't just acting as experts, but they have an underlying ideology that is driving their position. In that sense, the analogy to neckbeard is quite on the mark, as the same mentality is in play.
Besides, I don't look highly on trying to redefine the playing field.
If you don't feel like people are making arguments that are correct, then just say so. When you use dismissive labels you are actually attacking the person and not their argument. It also increases the volatility of discourse, and doesn't help people to see the points you would like them to evaluate. No, it shouldn't be like that, and people should examine claims regardless of how they are delivered, but the reality is that these threads have been very passionate on both sides and I think they could stand to cool off a little bit.
Now, I absolutely agree with you on a number of issues. I agree with your stance that corporations are attempting to gain more information from people and that this needs checks. I agree with your position on the NYPD Demographics Unit. And I am certainly not saying that we agree on everything, but I feel like you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum and our disagreement over certain aspects of this particular issue don't warrant the level of vitriol that is eventually reached when dismissive labels and other passion-escalating terminology is used.
Hedgie just doesn't disagree with ad hom.
That's the long and short if it.
No, it's that I grasp what the actual ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for their position isn't fallacious.
I got way too invested and passionate in the last thread, so I'm reading this thread and will chime in if I feel like it will actually matter. But I do want to ask if we can stop using phrases like "cryptonerds". Because to me, it comes across as dismissive of somebody who actually may know more about cryptography than you do. It might not be what you mean, but it just isn't a useful term to throw out there. It's like the Surveillance State Thread equivalent of "neckbeard".
Sorry, but no. The reason I use the term is to point out that these people aren't just acting as experts, but they have an underlying ideology that is driving their position. In that sense, the analogy to neckbeard is quite on the mark, as the same mentality is in play.
Besides, I don't look highly on trying to redefine the playing field.
If you don't feel like people are making arguments that are correct, then just say so. When you use dismissive labels you are actually attacking the person and not their argument. It also increases the volatility of discourse, and doesn't help people to see the points you would like them to evaluate. No, it shouldn't be like that, and people should examine claims regardless of how they are delivered, but the reality is that these threads have been very passionate on both sides and I think they could stand to cool off a little bit.
Now, I absolutely agree with you on a number of issues. I agree with your stance that corporations are attempting to gain more information from people and that this needs checks. I agree with your position on the NYPD Demographics Unit. And I am certainly not saying that we agree on everything, but I feel like you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum and our disagreement over certain aspects of this particular issue don't warrant the level of vitriol that is eventually reached when dismissive labels and other passion-escalating terminology is used.
Hedgie just doesn't disagree with ad hom.
That's the long and short if it.
No, it's that I grasp what the actual ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for their position isn't fallacious.
(also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
Such as?
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
If your country's intelligence services aren't spying on international diplomats, they aren't doing their job.
This is universal, and if you think it's the least bit controversial I don't know what to say. Diplomacy and espionage go hand in hand back to the earliest accounts of either.
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
Merkel isn't in hot water at all. People here inexplicably love her. (And she hasn't been "vociferous" about anything in her life.)
And while I haven't followed the situation in Brazil all that closely, I think it's been quite a while since the protests because of the world cup/olympics. I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything approaching "widespread discontent" over it.
Every country has domestic issues of some sort all the time. Everything any government does could simply be an attempt to distract people from domestic issues. But without further support, that's not a convincing argument.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
Merkel isn't in hot water at all. People here inexplicably love her. (And she hasn't been "vociferous" about anything in her life.)
And while I haven't followed the situation in Brazil all that closely, I think it's been quite a while since the protests because of the world cup/olympics. I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything approaching "widespread discontent" over it.
Every country has domestic issues of some sort all the time. Everything any government does could simply be an attempt to distract people from domestic issues. But without further support, that's not a convincing argument.
You should probably do a bit more reading about Brazil's economy, because discontent is pretty big all around. Yes, they managed to stop the protests, but that doesn't mean the problems are solved. As another example of countries that try to focus on foreign issues when domestic policy goes to crap, look at Argentina vis a vis Falklands recently.
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
Merkel isn't in hot water at all. People here inexplicably love her. (And she hasn't been "vociferous" about anything in her life.)
And while I haven't followed the situation in Brazil all that closely, I think it's been quite a while since the protests because of the world cup/olympics. I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything approaching "widespread discontent" over it.
Every country has domestic issues of some sort all the time. Everything any government does could simply be an attempt to distract people from domestic issues. But without further support, that's not a convincing argument.
None of that is about the WC/olympics, though, which is what Hedgie was talking about. I know there is some unrest in Brazil (although I didn't know things were quite that bad - I missed some of those stories), but I don't think that's new - the country has had its fair share of issues for a long time now. Still not convinced that that is the reason they are taking the stance they are on the NSA stuff. Like I said, I'd like to see something more than just "this country has domestic problems, therefore its foreign policy is an attempt to distract from them" to support that. Because that could apply to everything any country ever does.
And I would agree that they are not taking the stance against the spying to distract. They would legitimately prefer not to be spied upon (who wouldn't, think of the bonus it gets you in negotiations. After the American Black Chamber got shut down by that asshole Stimson we got reamed in negotiations).
But I think they treat the domestic consumption and distraction as welcome bonuses.
I got way too invested and passionate in the last thread, so I'm reading this thread and will chime in if I feel like it will actually matter. But I do want to ask if we can stop using phrases like "cryptonerds". Because to me, it comes across as dismissive of somebody who actually may know more about cryptography than you do. It might not be what you mean, but it just isn't a useful term to throw out there. It's like the Surveillance State Thread equivalent of "neckbeard".
Sorry, but no. The reason I use the term is to point out that these people aren't just acting as experts, but they have an underlying ideology that is driving their position. In that sense, the analogy to neckbeard is quite on the mark, as the same mentality is in play.
Besides, I don't look highly on trying to redefine the playing field.
If you don't feel like people are making arguments that are correct, then just say so. When you use dismissive labels you are actually attacking the person and not their argument. It also increases the volatility of discourse, and doesn't help people to see the points you would like them to evaluate. No, it shouldn't be like that, and people should examine claims regardless of how they are delivered, but the reality is that these threads have been very passionate on both sides and I think they could stand to cool off a little bit.
Now, I absolutely agree with you on a number of issues. I agree with your stance that corporations are attempting to gain more information from people and that this needs checks. I agree with your position on the NYPD Demographics Unit. And I am certainly not saying that we agree on everything, but I feel like you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum and our disagreement over certain aspects of this particular issue don't warrant the level of vitriol that is eventually reached when dismissive labels and other passion-escalating terminology is used.
Hedgie just doesn't disagree with ad hom.
That's the long and short if it.
No, it's that I grasp what the actual ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for their position isn't fallacious.
(also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
Such as?
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
So, because people in Brazil are protesting, the Brazilian president attacks the Americans over a non-issue?
I got way too invested and passionate in the last thread, so I'm reading this thread and will chime in if I feel like it will actually matter. But I do want to ask if we can stop using phrases like "cryptonerds". Because to me, it comes across as dismissive of somebody who actually may know more about cryptography than you do. It might not be what you mean, but it just isn't a useful term to throw out there. It's like the Surveillance State Thread equivalent of "neckbeard".
Sorry, but no. The reason I use the term is to point out that these people aren't just acting as experts, but they have an underlying ideology that is driving their position. In that sense, the analogy to neckbeard is quite on the mark, as the same mentality is in play.
Besides, I don't look highly on trying to redefine the playing field.
If you don't feel like people are making arguments that are correct, then just say so. When you use dismissive labels you are actually attacking the person and not their argument. It also increases the volatility of discourse, and doesn't help people to see the points you would like them to evaluate. No, it shouldn't be like that, and people should examine claims regardless of how they are delivered, but the reality is that these threads have been very passionate on both sides and I think they could stand to cool off a little bit.
Now, I absolutely agree with you on a number of issues. I agree with your stance that corporations are attempting to gain more information from people and that this needs checks. I agree with your position on the NYPD Demographics Unit. And I am certainly not saying that we agree on everything, but I feel like you and I are basically on the same side of the political spectrum and our disagreement over certain aspects of this particular issue don't warrant the level of vitriol that is eventually reached when dismissive labels and other passion-escalating terminology is used.
Hedgie just doesn't disagree with ad hom.
That's the long and short if it.
No, it's that I grasp what the actual ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for their position isn't fallacious.
(also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
Such as?
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
So, because people in Brazil are protesting, the Brazilian president attacks the Americans over a non-issue?
Sorry, that's patronizing bullshit.
No, it's called dogwagging, and it's a time-honored political tradition around the world.
Posts
The issue is that thanks to the aggressive data collection of mostly private groups, the anonymity of the crowd no longer exists.
The anonymity of the crowd only matters if they're rebroadcasting it in a targeted way. By and large that continues to be true - no one is making the coffee-shop conversations available online, even though they probably have them.
See my note on Google+ for a situation where that's compromised. Trying to write laws where we pretend it makes sense to stop people collecting data like this is absurd - not least because you quickly bandwagon every type of idiot privacy advocate to the problem.
I would much rather we target specific issues, such as the exchange of non-anonymized data, or the rewriting of privacy terms while you have someone's data already.
Effort involved in just claiming somebody's certificate of live birth is illegitimate: Practically none.
If you want to ruin somebody's life that badly, why do you even have to bother with researching the truth in the first place? See also: Kerry, Swift Boats; McCain, Black Child.
ETA: At the levels of NSA investment, mining information (in any aspect) is primarily because the information itself is valuable - not because it can be used as a means to an end. Finding out that someone is slipping funds to Al Qaeda, or is going to try to veto a UN security resolution, is not typically used for the purposes of blackmail or manipulation but to limit or stop those actions. There may certainly be cases where the opportunity arises to expose dirty laundry because it serves a purpose, but I'm quite skeptical of the claim that this is a primary motive for information collection - the same result can be achieved with much less effort and without the risk of exposing your information channels by just lying.
I wouldn't disagree with the notion that corporate surveillance from the biggest data-collection corporations would be something we'd like to curtail, or at least make more challenging, even in the face of meaningful consent (maybe read the next iTunes EULA agreement?). Personally, I don't think this diminishes the argument that government surveillance from the biggest security apparatus in the world (by far the United States intelligence and security departments) would be something worth curtailing. They're not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary, seeing how we're well aware that the same government entities work close with those data-collection corporations (Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google) to obtain the information for their stated goal: national security.
The iTunes EULA and FB's obsessions leaves something to be desired, but on the flip side--spying on tens of millions of French people because via the quiet consent of them insisting on using cell phones and email--doesn't hold up great either (if it is the case--optimists would argue it isn't, I think). The public argument (not on this forum, but in society presently), is "Hey, we need to seriously consider the limits to spying domestically, but hey, fuck those tens of millions of German and French people. If they didn't want to get spied on, they ought to communicate through carrier pigeons." Of course, I'm a foreign national living in the US, so I've resigned myself as being at a higher level of suspicion if the suspicion exists.
You can definitely be wary of both.
On the other side of it. On the scale of "worried" to "no fucks" i know which side of the line foreign nations having my information is. I mean corporations can advertise to me and report me to my govt/friends and my govt can lock me up(wont but like theoretical tyrannical govt). But foreign govts can't do anything to me even if they cared
I'm playing Devil's Advocate because I mostly agree with you.
There is some blackmail motive isn't THAT to much of a stretch. Honey pots are a proven technique, as is leverage on an individual...i.e. we'll make your financial problems / drunk driving / etc go away in exchange for a 'favor'. When a foreign government doesn't have to orchestrate the impropriety and instead has that handed to them, it makes the odds of succeeding that much better. Less moving parts - if you can make someone give up company secrets by threatening to forward the dick pics they sent their mistress to their spouse, no need to have a hooker in the right room with cameras at the right time, etc.
Still, that's relatively minor.
I think the bigger concern - at least outside the US - is where you say 'foreign govts can't do anything to me even if they cared'. When you look at the way the United States has operated in the past decade or so, with things like targeted drone strikes and extraordinary rendition, a legitimate argument can be made that yes - a foreign government CAN do something. Lots of people travel internationally.
Now, at the same time, mix-ups can happen either way. If you're a private citizen who isn't doing anything particularly wrong (mistress on the side, cheating on your taxes a little, those kinds of things) it probably doesn't make much of a difference and shouldn't. But if you're a head engineer or CEO of an important company - say, you are a system admin at Verisign, or are a head engineer at Siemens, I can see some kind of legitimate fear that you'll be pressured using that mundane intelligence.
Another minor thing - it's unlikely, but I recall reading that when the SAS troops were captured in Iraq during Desert Storm, Iraq had scarily accurate intelligence on them. Things like where they / their parents / their families lived, their kids schedules / friends, those kinds of things. I can also see someone being concerned in that situation, simply because there is a dossier on them sitting on a network somewhere that could be exploited in the future.
I'm not saying it IS a danger.
I'm saying that I can see the reasoning behind someone seeing it as a danger, and why a statement like 'a foreign government can't do anything' may fall on deaf ears and not be considered the end all to the discussion.
Besides, it's not an either / or situation. Someone could potentially consider both the international surveillance and the missiles to be a danger and object to both.
I could even see a rational position where someone believes that they are much more likely to prevent that international surveillance than the drone strikes. Which, in turn makes it less likely for the US to operate with impunity (due to difficulties locating / tracking targets). By undermining the ability of the US to operate with impunity due to lack of intelligence, they effectively kill two birds with one stone.
And it may not even be the case anyway.
Look at the Clinton Blowjob incident. Privacy was violated. But people were more offended by Linda Tripp's recording than they were of Bill Clinton.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Hugely damaging, but no privacy violations.
Frankly if you don't assume those things are happening you are nuts, see. More over everyone seems to think this level of espionage is new, it's not. Its like people forgot that the entire cold war ever happened. All that has changed is instead of agents on the streets of East/West Berlin it is hackers in office buildings.
That's not exactly a great...wikipedia...article, and even then, while it would be problematic, it's not what was described (and actually corresponds quite fittingly with our past complaints about Chinese espionage).
Then again, I suppose it's just a matter of time before the Chinese are intercepting hundreds of millions of emails in their equivalent of the Utah data collection center, so we might as well get used to it.
EDIT: Also, I guess China could just say, emphatically, "No, we're not." And that would be that. Get a hint, France.
I give it 10 years before China has their own facility. Oddly enough in Utah.
There was a brief period of time a couple of years ago when 15% of the internets traffic was mysteriously routed through China.
The sad truth of the world is way too much media stuff is explainable as "someone saw an opportunity to have the story be about them".
You mean in the leakers?
There's plenty of discernible motivation. Snowden is libertarian-leaning. He infiltrated an NSA contractor in order to try and achieve political change. Specifically heavily curtailing government surveillance of any communication.
He's arguing that his actions were justified by the call for "reform" they supposedly sparked.
I'm glad that the US has no intention of clemency.
I hope that when he inevitably pisses off the Russian government, they transfer him to a tech support facility in Pevek, rather than ship him back here.
- John Stuart Mill
(One of the least discussed aspects of this has been that the world leaders most vociferous in their complaints on US spying also happen to be dealing with major domestic issues as well.)
Color me absolutely shocked. Also, I figured that second part was a given. There's a reason why the current economic narrative of the BRICs is "Not as independent and secure as we thought"
Such as?
Brazil: widespread discontent over public costs of 2014/2016 preparations, which lead to rioting earlier this year.
Germany: anger over damage of German-led austerity policies has weakened Germany's position in the EU, which in turn has put Merkel in hot water at home.
This is universal, and if you think it's the least bit controversial I don't know what to say. Diplomacy and espionage go hand in hand back to the earliest accounts of either.
Merkel isn't in hot water at all. People here inexplicably love her. (And she hasn't been "vociferous" about anything in her life.)
And while I haven't followed the situation in Brazil all that closely, I think it's been quite a while since the protests because of the world cup/olympics. I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything approaching "widespread discontent" over it.
Every country has domestic issues of some sort all the time. Everything any government does could simply be an attempt to distract people from domestic issues. But without further support, that's not a convincing argument.
For the protests in Brazil: This guy has a lot.
On Oct 21st there was fighting over the Libra oil auction. The government brought the army out for security.
Oh and a huge company just went up in smoke.
But I think they treat the domestic consumption and distraction as welcome bonuses.
A. the American public always blames the President. Even when he can't / didn't actually do anything. (see: economy)
B. On the other hand, guess who could have quashed most of the stuff we're discussing if he wanted to?
Congress?
Cause the president cannot without breaking the law
So, because people in Brazil are protesting, the Brazilian president attacks the Americans over a non-issue?
Sorry, that's patronizing bullshit.
No, it's called dogwagging, and it's a time-honored political tradition around the world.